IV. REVISION NEGOTIATIONS AND CONCLUSION.
Lukewarmness of British Government—Sir R. Alcock's misgivings as to success—Mixed commission in Peking to consider details—Mr Hart's predominance—Treaty becomes a custom-house concern—Increase of duties being the Chinese aim—Sir Rutherford Alcock attributes failure to Mr Burlingame's misrepresentations—Merchants oppose the treaty—Ratification refused by British Government—Inferences from this fiasco—Chinese influenced by force alone.
Let us now revert to the cause and origin of the Burlingame mission—the revision of the treaty of Tientsin. The instruction for revision was given by Lord Stanley on August 16, 1867, in such general terms as the following:—
Her Majesty's Government neither wish, nor have they the right, to impose sacrifices on China, even though they may be convinced that the inconvenience of such sacrifices will be only temporary, whereas the benefit which will result from them will be lasting.... We must reconcile ourselves to waiting for the gradual development of that [better] system, and content ourselves with reserving for revision at a future period any new arrangement we may come to in 1868.... You will of course act openly with the representatives of other Powers, inviting and availing yourself of their co-operation.
A note of misgiving as to the policy of asking for the revision runs through the whole correspondence. After the preliminary labours of sifting the voluminous memorials from merchants and others, Sir Rutherford Alcock sums up their demands thus: "All their wants turn upon three or four cardinal defects, not of the treaties so much as in their execution." And he adds the significant reflection: "The question arises, if nothing is to be gained by demanding a revision, ... whether much would not be lost, and an opportunity thrown away, which might, by reserving the right, be turned to better account when the emperor's majority is declared. I believe the true policy of foreign Powers would be to wait; ... to this conclusion ... all the representatives of foreign Powers now in Peking are led." "The Chinese," he also says, "would go much faster and better if left alone."
The question naturally suggested by these remarks—why a task involving enormous labour, of which only negative results were to be expected, was entered upon at all at such an inopportune moment—remains unanswered.
It would be insufferably tedious, and of no practical utility, to track the windings of a maze leading nowhere, for the revised treaty was never ratified. But the labours of two whole years could not but leave landmarks to guide succeeding travellers over the same ground. It could not be but that with so much beating of the bushes the game would be started, if not brought to bag. It was a reconnaissance in force which, for the first time, compelled the respective parties to the struggle to reveal their true character and intentions. Such a discovery was perhaps not too dearly bought by the time and trouble expended on it.
The first definite step in the process of revision was the nomination of a mixed commission of British and Chinese "to devise means of securing a more prompt redress of commercial grievances." The members were Mr Fraser, second secretary to the British Legation; Mr Hart, Inspector-General of Customs; and two secretaries of the Tsungli-Yamên—a heavy preponderance on the Chinese side of the question. To the same commission was added another British member, Mr Adkins. And here it is not impertinent to observe that the absence of both the Chinese secretary, Mr Wade, and the acting Chinese secretary, Mr Brown, left the Legation in a condition too crippled to engage on work which would have taxed its full strength. The members of the commission held many sittings, reporting proceedings from time to time to their respective principals, the Tsungli-Yamên and the British Minister.
It needs no great effort of imagination to divine, in a body thus composed, whose would be the dominant voice. Mr Hart conducted the proceedings throughout. The discussion had not gone far when it was found hopeless to revise the provisions of the treaty in any sense compatible with progress or freer intercourse; and the dangerous questions which had caused the Government so much anxiety, and which had inspired both the Burlingame mission and the various secret memorials, being thus happily ruled outside the controversy, the Chinese Ministers seem to have given themselves no further concern about the revision. This distant attitude of theirs was severely commented on by a contemporary writer in 'Fraser's Magazine,' who said:—
After ten years of conciliatory blandishments on our part, the high Chinese authorities had so far disobeyed the spirit of the treaty that, although they had not actually prevented our Minister from corresponding and visiting with them, yet they had had the audacity to render all such intercourse absolutely nugatory, and had constrained him, after a long and successful diplomatic career, to descend to the extremely humiliating position of treating with them indirectly through the medium of Mr R. Hart.
As, however, the proceedings became focussed on a tariff revision destined to add to the duty receipts, a "collector of revenue wanting money," as Mr Hart described himself, was the most fitting negotiator, and the Chinese ministers were well pleased to leave him free to make his own bargain, so long as it yielded that result.
To give colour to the Chinese demand for higher duties a bold formula was resorted to, and supported by equally bold reasoning. The expedient was a rearrangement of the method of collection of inland dues on foreign merchandise, which was then, as it continues to be, the great bone of contention between foreign traders and the Chinese authorities. The treaties conferred on merchants the right of compounding for all inland taxation of their merchandise by a single payment at the port of entry; but the practices of the Chinese officials had rendered the privilege a nullity. In the new negotiations Mr Hart, on the part of the Chinese, took the high ground of maintaining, with subtle dialectic, that the protection which foreigners claimed was not in fact given by the treaties. So strongly did the Chinese entrench themselves in this contention, that heavy artillery was required to dislodge them. "Could any negotiators be so dull or incompetent," wrote Sir R. Alcock in reply, "as to sign a treaty of commerce with an Eastern potentate, extorted at the point of the bayonet, and leave this unlimited power in his hands to turn against us the next moment, or whenever he pleased, and nullify all that had been stipulated, destroying the trade for which alone war had been made?" Defeated in argument, the Chinese next begged that what they could not claim as a right might yet be accorded to them as a favour, thus copying the tactics of the Japanese in an analogous case.
As this proved to be the crux of the whole transaction, the rock on which the convention eventually split, it is useful to consider how the subject was treated in the negotiations. The treaties of Nanking, 1842, and of Tientsin, 1858, provided for the transit of British goods throughout the empire on payment of a fixed charge. But in securing exemption from arbitrary imposts in the interior, the treaty of Nanking signally failed; that of Tientsin had proved equally ineffective, and why? From inherent difficulties in the nature of things—obstacles absolutely insuperable so long as the country remained under the same organic conditions. Such were the propositions with which the British Minister entered upon the discussion of the subject; and as no proposal was made for changing the organic conditions of the empire, the prospect of obtaining a satisfactory fulfilment of those treaty provisions did not seem very encouraging.
But then a suggestion, apparently emanating from Consul Robertson at Canton, was made for simplifying the problem by doing away with the option which had been reserved in the treaties for foreign merchants, either to pay the commutation at the port of landing, or to allow their goods to run the gantlet of the Chinese customs stations. Instead of this, it was suggested that a single compulsory payment, amounting to half the import tariff, might be levied on the landing of the goods, which should thereafter be freed from all other imposts throughout the empire. It was not unnatural that a "collector of revenue" should appropriate this conception, and introduce it into the revised treaty; but then the doubt immediately arose on the other side, whether the promised exemption would be any more of a reality than it had been under the existing régime. If the difficulties in the way of fulfilling the stipulation in the treaty of Tientsin and Nanking were really insuperable, would they now disappear merely because the Chinese Government received an increased import duty? In considering Mr Hart's proposal, "the question would be," according to Sir Rutherford Alcock, "Could we obtain a sufficient guarantee that such additional import due would effectually exempt British goods from all other dues, local, provincial, and what not?" And again, "Security for exemption from all but the fixed 2½ per cent was the one question on which depended the value of any revision."
A necessary condition of any successful treaty was the assent of all the other Powers to its provisions, seeing that under their most-favoured-nation clauses any one of them by holding aloof could render the treaty inoperative. The various foreign representatives were therefore kept informed of the progress of negotiations. In this way their opinions were obtained from time to time as to the merits of the various proposals. On the subject of the compulsory payment of transit dues the opinions which the British Minister received from his colleagues were all unfavourable. They considered that some "additional guarantee would be necessary against failure, and as against security for additional losses which would be entailed upon the merchants." To give effect to the new proposals an edict was to be published acquainting all provincial officials with what had been agreed upon. But still the diplomatic body maintained "that nothing is really certain but the addition of 2½ per cent to the import duties. This will be rigorously exacted and paid; but whether the equivalent exemption from all other taxation will be obtained must be held doubtful, ... seeing that in the past the same provincial authorities have shown the most persistent disregard of treaty stipulations and proclamations." "Under such circumstances," Sir Rutherford adds, "it would seem reasonable that, during the first year at least, all amounts collected under the new arrangements ... should be carried to a separate account ... to meet claims for compensation." In the end, however, he saw reason to waive this proviso, to disregard the views of his colleagues, and to assent to the new impost, without any guarantee. Attempts to obtain concessions from the Chinese in the way of freer intercourse proved, as we have said, hopeless from the first. The renewal of the Chinese demand to establish a customs station in Hongkong—that "immense smuggling depot"—was refused on the British side; while the British request for recognition of Hongkong as a port of call for goods in transit to Canton was in like manner refused on the Chinese side, because it "would give the place a respectable name" as well as make it the "great emporium of the south." Hongkong, it is fair to remember, was, not unnaturally, odious in the eyes of the Chinese. The more prosperous the colony became, the more they hated it; and the more patriotic among them—as, for instance, the Minister Wênsiang—detested it the most.
The ruling factor in eliminating all measures of progress from the negotiations and reducing the whole to a customs question was Mr Burlingame.
After the arrival of the mission to Washington [wrote Sir Rutherford on February 27, 1869] the hopes which the signature of the additional articles was calculated to excite undoubtedly exercise a very prejudicial effect on my efforts.... With Mr Burlingame's enthusiastic reception, and the prompt signature of the convention by which the United States Government pledged itself to leave China free to adopt or reject all such innovations and internal improvements, and even to use its influence with other Powers for the same end, they gained precisely the assurance they wanted.... From that moment further progress or successful negotiation became impossible.
He added in a subsequent despatch to Lord Clarendon:—
One result stands out more clearly than any other, and it is this: what we have gained by the last year's preliminary negotiations is not likely to be withdrawn. But if it was difficult to negotiate for large concessions before the assurance authoritatively given by your lordship to Mr Burlingame, ... it is now out of the question to hope for more than has already been conceded.... Strong in the assurances of two of the treaty Powers, ... it is quite certain that no further progress can be made at present. It simply remains for her Majesty's Government to determine whether they will carry out the revision on the basis proposed and already assented to by the Chinese Government, or defer the revision altogether to some later period.
The provisional report of the negotiations having been submitted by the Foreign Office to the other treaty Powers for their opinion, most of them contented themselves with amicable generalities, the only definite criticism elicited being that of the North German Confederation. Going straight to the core of the matter, in May 1869, Count Bernstorff wrote as follows, basing his remarks upon the opinion of the German merchants:—
Although the advantages which are to be expected for trade in general from the abolition of the "lekin taxes" would not be too dearly bought by this extension of the transit duty to all commodities, yet, on the other hand, the treaty Powers certainly have the right of demanding the abolition of the taxes levied contrary to treaty, even without giving anything in return, and they might probably obtain this result by common action. And then, moreover, it appears, from existing circumstances in China, exceedingly questionable whether this tax, even if abolished by imperial edict in consequence of a treaty, would not, nevertheless, still be levied by the mandarins, although perhaps in another shape, since now indeed they have their assignments thereon.
Doubts on the part of the Foreign Office led to further correspondence backwards and forwards, closing with the following ambiguous despatch, dated 29th September, which was transmitted by telegram, a very slow process in those days:—
If you should not have concluded an arrangement before this reaches you, her Majesty's Government think it would be better to protract negotiations rather than accept now a limited arrangement, which would be binding for so long a period as ten years, and which would not comprise a satisfactory arrangement respecting transit duties, and which might compromise the right of her Majesty's Government to take part in the negotiations of other Powers for a revision of their treaties.
Should you, however, have completed any arrangement, you may be assured that the best view will be taken of it here.
The supplementary convention was, in fact, signed in October, and Sir Rutherford Alcock took his leave immediately after, visiting the Yangtze, Shanghai, Hongkong, and India on his way to Europe. At these places he explained in general terms the bearing of the treaty, the Indian Government being specially concerned in the increase of the Chinese import duty on opium, to which the trade generally were absolutely indifferent.
The supplementary convention was exhaustively reviewed by the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce in a memorial addressed to Lord Clarendon (December 31, 1869). To the practical view of the merchants the treaty consisted of three clauses: one making compulsory what had previously been optional—the payment of half the import duty in commutation of inland dues on foreign merchandise; one doubling the export duty on raw silk; and the third more than doubling the import duty on opium. Of these, the first alone was deemed important. The consideration offered by the Chinese Government for the compulsory payment—that they would frank imported goods through nine of the eighteen provinces of China—was not regarded as an equivalent; for the treaty of Tientsin contained the same undertaking without the geographical limitation, but it had not been fulfilled. The ground alleged for this non-observance of the existing treaty had been the existence of insurmountable obstacles in connection with provincial and imperial finance. These obstacles, the merchants observed, were "now assumed to have been suddenly overcome," an assumption which they considered illusory. The question of transit dues was not new to them: it had been threshed out on all sides during weary years; it was the recurrent topic of the day with them, as it was destined to continue to be for a generation longer; and the merchants could not therefore believe that the difficulties against which they had been hopelessly struggling were suddenly removed by magic. They were not shown how the revolution was to be effected. In short, "the conclusion," they said, "was irresistible, that to a very great extent the commutation of transit dues, which is made compulsory by the new treaty, will simply become an additional tax on trade without any return whatever; and that the provincial authorities will as heretofore tax goods in transit very much as they please, the treaty stipulation to the contrary notwithstanding,"—a conclusion supported by arguments which could not be refuted.
Sir Thomas Wade some years later expressed the same views as the merchants had done. "I doubted," he said, "the good faith of officials when breach of faith could only be established by the evidence of those subject to their authority and entirely in their power.... I have since found reason to believe that the control of taxation in the provinces is a matter of no small trouble to the Central Government as at present constituted, if indeed it be possible at all." Nevertheless, he adds, "I have found occasion to regret that the convention has not been allowed at least a term of probation." A term of probation was the alternative suggested by the merchants also, but it seems never to have received any consideration from the Foreign Office.
The representation which the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce based upon their review of the treaty was adopted by influential commercial bodies in England, who in a "monstrous deputation," as Mr Hammond called it, urged on the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the non-ratification of the treaty. The British Government gave way, not, as they candidly admitted, convinced by the reasoning, but overawed by the electoral pressure of the merchants; and the supplementary convention was allowed to fall through.
Thus ended the first attempt to negotiate a treaty with China as a perfectly free agent. The conclusion to be drawn not only from the negative result, but from the whole process of the negotiations—from the memorials from the provinces, and still more from the Privy Council, the six boards, and the censorates—is, as stated by Sir Rutherford Alcock in May 1869, "that the old spirit of arrogance of the days of Lin and Yeh is still in full vigour, and the assumption of superiority over the barbarian absolutely unmeasured. That the anti-foreign element amongst the official and educated classes has suffered no diminution whatever; that if some two or three leading men take a clearer view of the political situation, they are evidently without power to take action upon it; and so the vessel of State is allowed to drift whichever way the tide of prejudice and ignorance may set. There are still some documents," he added, "wanting to complete the series, especially the answer of Li Hung-chang and a second memorial of Tsêng Kwo-fan [[p. 184] seq.], which it would be desirable to obtain as showing the policy advocated by two of the most prominent men in the empire at this moment."
One sentence of Sir Rutherford Alcock sums up the case China v. the West: "Pressure, indeed, there must always be here if anything is to be achieved for the advancement of foreign interests and commerce. In one way or other, however we may disguise it, our position in China has been created by force—naked, physical force; and any intelligent policy to improve or maintain that position must still look to force in some form, latent or expressed, for the results." Whether the Western nations, singly or collectively, are justified in using their force for such a purpose is a question which is not affected by this plain statement of the case. That the policy of the Western Powers has been largely influenced by sentimental consideration towards China is true; but their action has never been consistent with their professions, and their oscillation between coercion and submission has led to disastrous consequences.
CHAPTER XXII.
MISSIONARY PROBLEM—TIENTSIN MASSACRE OF 1870.
Importance of missionary question long foreseen by Consul Alcock—Introduction of missionaries under two French treaties—Toleration of Christians under treaties of 1858—Forced upon China—Ardour of missionary spirit uncontrollable—Negligence of treaty-makers in providing no regulations for admission of the propaganda—Contrasted with the care bestowed on trade regulations—Religious toleration of the Chinese—Christian intolerance—Surreptitious article in French Convention of 1860—Giving large privileges to missionaries in the interior—Its abuse complained of by Chinese—Enforced restitution of old property—Bitter injustice—Disintegrating action of the propaganda—Abuses of extra-territoriality—Interference in local affairs—Detaching natives from their allegiance—Causes of strife—Chinese Government culpable in permitting abuses—Disputes about land and houses—Chinese official laxity compensated for by unofficial illegitimate methods—Attacks on missions fomented thereby—No remedy possible without the unanimous consent of the Powers—Each having different objects—Fruits of widespread hostility to missions appeared in 1868—Riot and outrage—Culminated in Tientsin massacre of 1870—Details of the occurrence—Treated cavalierly by Imperial Government—Culpability of officials—Pressure by foreign Ministers induces Chinese to execute sixteen criminals—Apologetic mission of Chunghou to France—Suspicions of his complicity unfounded—Causes of the hostility to foreigners—Government fear of reprisals by France—They begin to take the missionary question seriously—Issue an important circular—Badly received by the Powers.
No subject more seriously engaged the attention of Sir Rutherford Alcock during his whole term of service than that of the Christian propaganda. While it was yet in embryo, and long before the untoward consequences now so familiar had declared themselves, the evil to come formed the theme of many anxious despatches. For, with the exception of Mr T. T. Meadows, he was the only one of the early consuls who attempted to read the horoscope of China with a conscious participation in the responsibility for its welfare. Their warnings were, of course, wasted on the desert air, for statesmen whose hands are on the lever of events are like the signalmen on a busy railway, recking nothing of the origin or destination of the train, careful only that it pass their own "point" in safety. The thin end of the entering wedge destined to split China into fragments, unless anticipated (as in fact it has been) in its disruptive work by some ruder allied agency, was clearly discerned by Consul Alcock while at Shanghai. Under cover of the first French treaties in 1844 and 1846 missionaries effected a legal lodgment on the coast of China, from which they cast longing eyes on the vast interior of the country. Rivalry between the Christian sects brought fresh pressure to bear on the plenipotentiaries, and the "toleration clause" was introduced into all the treaties negotiated at Tientsin in 1858, and in the German treaty of 1861.
Russia led the way, followed by the United States, Great Britain, and France. The "clause" was substantially the same in all, the toleration of Christianity being based on its moral character exclusively—"Hommes de bien qui ne cherchent pas d'avantages matériels" (Russian); "Teaching men to do good, and to do to others as they would have others do to them" (American); "Inculcates the practice of virtue, and teaches man to do as he would be done by" (English); "Ayant pour objet essentiel de porter les hommes à la vertu" (French).[16] Yet this apparent unanimity concealed essential differences in aim and motive. Russia, France, and the United States, to leave England out of the account, each meant something specifically distinct from the other by the practically identical clause.
What the Chinese would have said, had they been free to discuss the demand made upon them, we can hardly conjecture; but in the position in which they actually found themselves they would have subscribed to any form of words submitted to them, their sole anxiety then being to get rid of the barbarians on any terms. Had the preamble run, "Whereas the Christian religion as practised for 1800 years has not brought peace but a sword upon the earth, has set the father against the son, nation against nation, instigated crimes without number, sided with the oppressor and the unrighteous judge, and is daily prostituted for political ends," the Chinese would have signed the toleration clause just the same. The phraseology was nothing to them, whence it follows that the responsibility for the consequences rests on the Powers who imposed the form as well as the substance of the obligations. These Powers placed themselves in a self-contradictory position both towards China and the Church, for the only ground on which they claimed protection for missionaries in the framing of the treaty is the one which they cannot so much as consider in the fulfilment of it. The ethical and religious side of the propaganda is to the executive official a negligible quantity, while he can take cognisance only of that aspect of Christianity which was studiously kept out of sight in the treaty—its political character, the temper of the missionaries and of the people among whom they work, and all that makes for good or bad relations between them.
Amid mixed and perverted motives there is doubtless in all sections of the propaganda a residuum of pure zeal in a holy cause. The medieval solicitude for "saving the heathen" survives, and men and women, fired with the conviction that they are engaged in such a godlike enterprise, constitute an ever-living force with which statesmen have to lay their account. It can neither be reasoned with nor turned aside, and is the more intractable in that the logical effect of its inspiration is to place it above civil law, but under a divine law of its own interpreting, the interpretation varying indefinitely with the divisions of the force, each division, and sometimes each individual, selecting such portions of the code and bending them to such meaning as may support the objects and the methods of the sect. To introduce such a complex ferment into the Chinese body politic was a psychological experiment on a colossal scale, and also irrevocable. It was, therefore, an experiment which demanded the kind of precaution used in handling dangerous chemicals.
Yet absolutely no thought was bestowed on the subject; the explosive was imported with less ceremony than is bestowed on a bale of long cloth, and left to spread according to its own laws in the living tissue into which it was injected. So far at least as the English treaty was concerned, we have it on the authority of the actual negotiator that the Christian clause was an after-thought "shoved in" at the last moment. The same authority adds, "The treaty was left to carry out itself"—in other respects besides that of the missionary question. Sir Rutherford Alcock speaks of "the futility of grafting on to a treaty of commerce, forced upon the Chinese under circumstances which left them no power to refuse, a proselytising agency for the conversion of the nation to Christianity.... Whatever aims at these ends under the stipulation of a treaty of commerce and amity introduces a cause of distrust and an element of disturbance. This we have done, and are now reaping the fruit." But a rose-cutting would not be grafted with the insouciance with which this spiritual element was incongruously inserted in a commercial treaty. Commenting directly upon the toleration clause itself, Sir Rutherford wrote: "It is only necessary to read carefully the words of the article to be aware that in the whole range of the treaty, from the 1st to the 56th article, there is nothing stipulated for so difficult to secure as the fulfilment in its integrity of this one clause."
The foreign Powers generally seemed to court the very "disturbance" apprehended by "leaving the treaty to carry out itself," washing their hands of their own careless work. We have seen what pains were taken to allow the treaty to operate smoothly in its main purpose by elaborating a scheme of trade regulations far more complete than the treaty itself. But as foreign trade had been carried on by the Chinese for centuries, and the merchants of the respective countries were thoroughly at home with each other, commerce was the least likely source of friction. Of the new dynamic element introduced into the treaties, it seems never to have occurred to the negotiators that any regulation was necessary at all. Missionaries were permitted to enter and settle in the interior, where everything was strange, for practical purposes beyond the orbit of their countries' laws, while protected against the jurisdiction of the Government under which they were to live. Men who could withstand the temptation offered by such a state of things are not born every day. Without rule of conduct save their individual judgment, with no previous understanding with the Chinese provincial officials as to relative rights and duties, they were left to find such accommodation to their surroundings as their several idiosyncrasies and the untried conditions of Chinese social life might determine. The missionary in the interior had thus all the qualities of a "foreign body" setting up irritation in the organism,—a state of things, however, which his absolute faith in the sanctity of his mission perhaps prevented him from comprehending.
One trait in the national character was highly favourable to the reception of a foreign religion. The Chinese were of all nations the most tolerant of opinion. They had already accepted and assimilated two foreign religions—Buddhism and Mohammedanism; indeed they had also, two hundred years before, accepted and retained Christianity until it was expelled in convulsions provoked by the foreign missionaries themselves. Its second advent need not have caused convulsions had it come as the others had done, with clean hands, as a religion and nothing else. The tolerance of the Chinese has been referred to materialism and contemptuous apathy, which is by no means an exhaustive account of the matter. They were not, any more than Hindus, naked savages without language or literature: if anything, they were over-civilised. Proud they were, indeed, and conceited, and in its religious aspect they affected to regard Christianity as but a wave breaking on a rock. Their rock was a unique philosophy, scarcely to be called a system, which stands for religion, differing from other philosophic systems in eschewing speculation and attending to the ethics of common life,—the only philosophy that may be said ever to have transfused itself into the blood of a people.
The culture of the Chinese, however, was merely an obstacle to the realisation of the Catholic ideal of saving the heathen, as the grandest natural scenery was regarded merely as a hindrance to medieval travel. "Unhappy infidels, who spend their lives in smoke and their eternity in flames," was Father le Jeune's epigrammatic summary of the whole case in Quebec. So deep-rooted is the tradition of the reprobation of the heathen, that it generally requires many years' experience before a foreign missionary is led by contact with facts to see that Chinese ethics form the natural basis for the Christian superstructure. Some missionaries, indeed, go so far as to use the writings of Confucius as a text-book. Before reaching this ripe stage, however, the foreign missionary has it in his power to do more mischief than he can perhaps ever undo.
There was one treaty stipulation which has not been left to chance for its fulfilment—the additional article inserted in the French Convention of Peking in 1860. An astute missionary, acting as interpreter to Baron Gros, managed to interpolate in the Chinese text a clause of his own which had no place in the French—the ruling version—and was quite unknown to the French Envoy.[17] By that clause full permission was accorded to French missionaries to purchase land and erect buildings thereon throughout the empire; and further, all churches, schools, cemeteries, lands, and buildings which had been owned by persecuted Christians (Chinese) in previous centuries were to be paid for, and the money handed to the French representative in Peking for transmission to the Christians in the localities concerned. This astounding demand, in our eyes at once so truculent and so impracticable, seems to have been to the Chinese neither more nor less oppressive than the rest of the treaty, and they signed without demur, under the usual mental reservation. But it was in germ an official recognition of a French protectorate over Chinese Christians, and of corporate communities of Christians held qualified to be served heirs to those who had been persecuted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—a germ which might be cultivated with greater or less success, according to the skill of those who had the care of it. Some effort of imagination is required in order to realise what is implied in this surreptitious article.
We must suppose [wrote Sir Rutherford Alcock] a French army entering London and there dictating the conditions of peace, and among others one that all Church property confiscated by Henry VIII. should forthwith be restored to the Roman Catholic Church by the present holders, however acquired, and without compensation, and that the French Government could be appealed to in order to enforce the rigorous execution of the stipulation.
How the stipulation was enforced is thus described by Prince Kung in his circular of 1871, more fully noticed below:—
During the last few years the restitution of chapels in every province has been insisted upon without any regard for the feeling of the masses, the missionaries obstinately persisting in their claims. They have also pointed out fine handsome houses (belonging to, or occupied by, the gentry or others) as buildings once used as churches, and these they have compelled the people to give up. But what is worst, and what wounds the dignity of the people, is that they often claim as their property yamêns, places of assembly, temples held in high respect by the literates and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Buildings which were once used as chapels have been in some cases sold years ago by Christians; and, having been sold and resold by one of the people to another, have passed through the hands of several proprietors. There is also a large number of buildings which have been newly repaired at very considerable expense, of which the missionaries have insisted on the restitution, refusing at the same time to pay anything for them. On the other hand, there are some houses which have become dilapidated, and the missionaries put in a claim for the necessary repair. Their conduct excites the indignation of the people whenever they come in contact with each other, and it becomes impossible for them to live quietly together.[18]
Bitter consequences have resulted from the enforced operation of the interpolated clause, for the French Government, as is shown above, took full advantage of the pious fraud. Neither did the Chinese themselves, on discovering the truth, openly resent this example of how the foreign religion "porte les hommes à la vertu." The fraud was more than condoned by missionaries of all nations and sects, whose legal title to residence in the interior of China, distant from all authority, rests solely on the interpolated French clause, the benefit of which accrues to them under the most-favoured-nation privilege. British Protestant missionaries, not altogether satisfied with this tainted title, in a long letter to their Minister, Sir Rutherford Alcock, claimed the right of inland residence on another ground. They adduced the public declaration of Mr Burlingame, that "China invites Protestant missionaries to plant the shining Cross on every hill and in every valley"; to which the answer was simple, that the Chinese Government disavowed the promises of the envoy, and repudiated the implied obligation. The British Government disapproved of the claim under the French treaty, though in rather ambiguous terms, because it rested "on no sound foundation, but on an interpolation of words in the Chinese version alone in the French treaty with China." Since then, however, the pretensions of the French missionaries have been vindicated less by the interpolated clause itself than by the vigorous exercise of all the rights conferred by it, and very much more. The clause thus lent material force to the spiritual ferment, accelerating by many degrees its disintegrating action. It may be alleged, in palliation of the light-heartedness with which the whole subject was treated by the negotiators of the treaties, that they could not have foreseen such a development of their innocent toleration clause; but the circumstance only emphasises the urgent need there was for a clear definition of what was really meant by it.
But if toleration be the note of Chinese polity—concerning not religion alone, but almost every matter affecting government—it may be asked, What is it in the propagation of Christianity that excites the hostility of people and rulers? It is that the missionaries present themselves to Chinese view as the instruments of powerful nations bent on the ruin of the empire. They enter the country with a talisman of extra-territoriality; their persons are sacred; the law of the land cannot lay hands on them. That is the first stage. The second is, that they seek to extra-territorialise their converts also, whose battles they fight in the provincial courts and in the rustic communes, and so make it of material advantage to the people to bear the banner of the Cross. Many missionaries are really zealous in the work of alienating the Chinese from their natural allegiance, and of encouraging them to seek the protection of foreign Powers as against the native authorities. Thus a revolution of the most vital nature is in progress, and is being pushed on with all the energy which Christian, combined with ecclesiastical and political, zeal can throw into the work. Village is set against village, clan against clan, family against family, and a man's foes in China are too often they of his own household.[19]
No doubt the Chinese Government are to blame for having allowed such a state of things to grow up; but it is part and parcel of their drifting attitude towards everything. It is not that their apprehensions are not aroused, but that they lack initiative to avert the danger which they fear. While in theory they do not admit the claim of any foreign Power to protect Chinese subjects, yet in practice the thing goes on, and is acquiesced in. So formidable, indeed, have the foreign missionaries become, that most of the provincial authorities are afraid as well as jealous of them; and peace-loving viceroys give the simple injunction to their prefects and magistrates that on no account must they permit dispute with foreigners or native Christians. This means that the Chinese Christian must be upheld, right or wrong, and the Christian would be very un-Chinese if he did not take advantage of such a privilege to trounce his heathen neighbours.
The right given in the French treaty of acquiring land and building houses in the interior is one of the most constant causes of local quarrel. Real estate in China, being held not on personal but on family tenure, can only be rightfully alienated by the common consent. A dissentient member holding out, or reviving his claim for purposes of extortion after assent has been given and transfer made, may become a convenient instrument in the hands of agitators against the foreigners; and where there is no such dissentient it is not unusual for the local authorities to create one by forcible means. A case in point may be mentioned in illustration. A building was made over to the Baptist Missionary Society by a Chinese family, every precaution being taken to obtain the unanimous consent of its various branches. When the deed had been signed by the head of the family and other responsible members, the local magistrate examined the chief of the clan, denounced him, and punished him severely by bastinado. Two of the signatories, thus intimidated, disowned their own act, thereby invalidating the deed by non-unanimity.
Nearly all the attacks on missionaries proceed in one form or another from that fecund nursery of feuds, the land question. Whatever the merits of the dispute, the foreigner is prima facie in the wrong; for he is an alien, an intruder, and he erects buildings which are outlandish, offensive to taste, and of sinister influence; and whosoever, albeit the most disreputable member of a family of three or four generations, proclaims a grievance by which he has lost his birthright, is sure of a sympathetic following. Thus without taking into account individual indiscretions, or infirmities of temper, open attacks on time-honoured customs, and so forth, there is a perennial root of bitterness in missionary enterprise in the interior of China, which throws out shoots culminating in murder and fiendish ferocity; and all this without even a distant approach to the kernel of Christianity which lies behind the outworks.
For what the Chinese authorities have failed to do by the legitimate means at their command, their underlings and the circle of gentry that surrounds each provincial centre attempt to do by illegitimate and criminal methods. Hatred of missions and converts shows itself by violent outbreaks in which innocent and guilty suffer a common fate; mobs are excited by false suggestions, scholars write inflammatory placards filled with the foulest calumnies, and the higher officials "let it work"—secretly applauding, but ready, if called to account, to exculpate themselves and blame the poor ignorant people.
The charges which form the staple of these attacks turn largely upon the murder of children in order to make use of eyes, members, blood, &c., in certain Christian rites; and they are so extravagant and absurd that foreigners are apt to doubt that even the most ignorant among the people really believe in the crimes which are alleged against Christians. The best authorities, however,—as, for example, the late Sir Thomas Wade,—do not question the sincerity of the popular belief; and indeed if we compare these charges with those made against the Jews by influential sections of Christians in Europe, we shall be surprised at their practical identity.
For this deplorable state of things no one has been able to suggest a remedy. What has been done cannot be undone. To mend it even would require such united action among the Great Powers as it is hardly possible in the present state of the world to conceive. France, indeed, on the morrow of the Tientsin massacre, did appeal to the co-operative principle as a protection to all foreign interests in China. The French ambassador in London addressed the Foreign Office in these terms:—
Bien que les victimes de ces attentats soient presque exclusivement des Français, on ne saurait contester que des faits pareils révèlent l'existence de dangers qui menacent indistinctement tous les étrangers résidant en Chine. C'est en considérant leurs intérèts comme solidaires dans ces contrées de l'extrême Orient que les Puissances européennes peuvent arriver à assurer à leurs nationaux les garanties et les sécurités stipulées dans les traités.
In the subsequent action of France in China, however, there has been no trace of regard for any such principle of solidarity. Indeed, were the Powers ever so amicably disposed towards each other on other questions, they could not agree in this, the objects of their policy being absolutely irreconcilable.
"We cannot doubt," wrote Sir Rutherford Alcock, "that the missionary question is the main cause of disturbance in our relations with China, and of danger to the Chinese Government itself no less than to all foreigners resident in the country, missionaries and laymen alike." He recommended in 1868 that "the treaty Powers should, if possible, come to some understanding on the religious and missionary question as the necessary preliminary to any united action for the common benefit, the acquisition of increased facilities for trade, &c." And he says, "As regards Chinese converts, any attempt to extend a protectorate over them would of necessity either fail or be subversive of the whole government of China." But in the same paper he states that "France, with no trade in the East, is ambitious of a protectorate over Roman Catholic missions"; and that "with regard to converts protection has been partially extended to them under the ægis of the French Government, and that persistent efforts were being made to make that protection effectual." These efforts have been still more persistent during the generation that has since passed. With France the protectorate over native Christians is the great objective of her Chinese diplomacy—not the ultimate end, indeed, but the lever by which that end may be attained. To suggest to France, therefore, the abandonment of this policy would be about as hopeless as asking her to give up her colonies as the preliminary to an international conference. And while France protects the proselytising machinery of the Roman Catholic Church and its consequent usurpation of the Chinese authority, it would seem of little avail to place other missionaries under restriction.
The fruits of this war of the social elements began to be harvested in 1868, as Sir Rutherford Alcock observed; but that was only the beginning of a long series of conflicts which have marked the progress of missionary work in China up to the present day. Riot, outrage, and massacre are its regular landmarks. The outbreaks have so much in common that it would serve no useful purpose to trace them in detail, or attempt to apportion praise or blame to this or that individual or sect. The one which has left the reddest mark on history, and, being enacted in the presence of a foreign mercantile community, brought the several factors in the question into a clearer light than can ever be thrown upon outrages in remote parts of the interior, is the Tientsin massacre of 21st June 1870. This occurred six months after Sir Rutherford Alcock left China, while Mr Wade was chargé d'affaires for Great Britain, and Count Rochechouart for France, in Peking.
The massacre of sixteen French Sisters of Charity, including an Irish girl, Alice Sullivan, a French consul, and several French subjects, also—unwittingly, according to the imperial edict treating of the occurrence—a Russian merchant and his wife, was the work of an organised band, led by the city fire brigade, under the direction of the civic authorities. The crime had been planned for some time: it was preceded by the murder of an isolated English missionary, Mr Williamson, near Tientsin, and by an attempted anti-foreign rising in Nanking, which was promptly suppressed by the viceroy, Ma, who was soon after himself assassinated. (He was a Mohammedan.) The impending outrage in Tientsin was foreseen, and warning given, several days before. An Englishman was attacked on the 19th for no reason. The official highest in rank on the spot—not, however, a territorial authority—was Chunghou, a Manchu, holding the office of Imperial Commissioner for Trade, and very friendly to foreigners. Admiral Keppel says of him that he was the most finished Chinese gentleman he had ever met, with the exception of the viceroy of Canton (probably meaning Kiying). The governor of the province was Tsêng Kwo-fan, whose capital was Paoting-fu, some 100 miles in the interior; and his subordinates, the prefect and magistrate, were the authorities at Tientsin immediately responsible for the massacre. Chunghou had warned the Peking Government several weeks before of the progress of the agitation against the French mission.
The Imperial Government immediately on the occurrence issued an edict describing the massacre as "a quarrel between the people and the missionaries resulting in a fight," but were promptly driven from that position and pressed, not only by the French, but by all the foreign representatives, to investigate and do justice in the case, Count Rochechouart demanding the capital punishment of the three mandarins who had instigated the massacre. On this the Chinese Government remarked in a secret edict, "Rochechouart, with boundless arrogance, demands the execution of the Fu and Hsien, a demand ten thousand times to be rejected." Under pressure, however, the Government ordered the governor-general, Tsêng, to proceed to the spot and investigate. After a protracted journey he reached Tientsin and commenced to take evidence, not of the crime committed, but of the suspicions which had been excited against the Sisters of Mercy, whom, after ransacking their cemeteries for mutilated children, he eventually acquitted. He then suspended the magistrates pro formâ, and spoke of sending for troops to catch the rioters! On receiving the viceroy's report another imperial decree was issued repeating the original falsehoods, and causing much disappointment to the foreign Ministers. Renewed pressure from them, not without hints of stronger measures, resulted in the offer of fifteen of the mob to be executed, which, being unanimously rejected, the Chinese Government, apparently thinking it was the number that was inadequate, threw in five more, making twenty in all. Sixteen were actually beheaded, the remaining four being saved by the timely arrival of the Russian Minister, who protested against the execution of the men accused of murdering the Russians, because he did not believe in their guilt. Compensation was paid by the Chinese officials to the families of the executed men, which, with the honours done to their dead bodies, showed that they were sacrificed not for crime, but for reasons of State. Of course pecuniary compensation was made on account of the victims of the massacre, the Chinese Government being never hard to deal with where money is concerned. The prefect and the magistrate who had busied themselves after the tragedy in torturing Christians, in order to extort from them confessions which would justify the massacre, were nominally banished, though it was perfectly understood that this was a pure matter of form.
RUINS OF FRENCH CATHEDRAL AT TIENTSIN, BURNED JUNE 20, 1870.
As part of the reparation for the massacre the Imperial Commissioner for Northern Trade, Chunghou, was despatched in the early part of 1871 on a mission to France to express the regret of the Chinese Government for what had occurred. This official, the first man of rank who was ever sent out of China, received but an indifferent reception from the President of the French Republic. Being the highest authority in Tientsin at the time of the massacre, and having known of the preparations for an outbreak of some kind, Chunghou was severely blamed by Europeans on the coast of China, who alleged that the massacre could have been prevented had he put forth his authority. Meetings were even held on the subject in Shanghai, and remonstrances were sent to Europe against Chunghou's being received anywhere as an ambassador until he should exonerate himself from all share in the Tientsin atrocity. These representations, no doubt, had something to do with the attitude of the French Provisional Government, which, on other grounds also, was probably little disposed in that year to occupy itself with the affairs either of the Church or of China.
There is reason to believe, however, that Chunghou's conduct during the affair of Tientsin was not inconsistent with innocence; for although he was a man in authority, it was only as superintendent of trade, having no control whatever over the hierarchy of territorial officials, who were under the orders of the viceroy, Tsêng Kwo-fan. Beyond his personal attendants it is not probable that Chunghou could move a corporal's guard in Tientsin, and his position was such that the local authorities and their myrmidons looked with the keenest jealousy on any departure of the superintendent of trade from the strict line of his own functions. He dared not, in fact, move a finger against officers who owed allegiance to the viceroy, and in apprising the Peking Government of the rumours which were current, Chunghou probably considered that he had gone as far as public duty warranted. These somewhat anomalous relations between two high dignitaries of the empire were put an end to when Li Hung-chang succeeded Tsêng Kwo-fan as viceroy of Chihli; for he was appointed also the successor of Chunghou as superintendent of trade, and resided for the most part of his time in the commercial port, Tientsin. The two offices continue to be combined in one person.
Most of the typical features of a missionary outrage were in this case exemplified—ferocious placards and brochures, circulation of calumnies against the missionaries, guilt of the local authorities, their immunity from punishment, and the official publication of travestied versions of the occurrence. There was also, we may add, a lurking disposition on the part of foreign Governments to give credit to the Chinese charges against the missionaries. Finding themselves unable by pressure on the Chinese to obtain satisfaction for past or security against future outrages, they were seldom indisposed to cover their impotence by throwing the blame on their own people.
There was, consequently, readiness in certain foreign official quarters to dwell on undefined "indiscretions." It was too easily assumed in the beginning that the practice of the Sisters of Charity of purchasing destitute children reasonably excited the suspicions of the people. As a matter of fact, however, as was admitted afterwards, this alleged practice of the Sisters was entirely imaginary. It was also assumed that the massacre was a spontaneous act of the populace, who believed the stories of kidnapping. But in view of the fact that these agitations arose simultaneously in distant parts of the empire, this theory of sporadic action could not be sustained: besides, as Tsêng Kwo-fan himself shrewdly enough pointed out, no child had been missed from any family at Tientsin, and the idea of a disciplined fire brigade and a great city mob being suddenly roused to fury by the abstract idea that somewhere children had been kidnapped by somebody is too altruistic for ordinary belief. The mob needed an instigator, and the instigator was well known.
In the diplomatic correspondence which ensued, admitted on all hands to be most unsatisfactory, the British chargé d'affaires had occasion to complain to Prince Kung that in the communications that passed foreign Ministers and their Governments were spoken of as vassals, which, coming two years after Mr Wade's warm support of the Burlingame mission, was instructive as regards the progress in liberal ideas which had been claimed for the Chinese.
Another consequence of this affair may be noted. The instructions to British naval officers in China, which had been dictated by Mr Burlingame in 1869, were virtually reversed after the Tientsin massacre.
It was the general belief at the time that, literally by the fortune of war, the Chinese Government narrowly escaped a signal retribution for its continued guerilla warfare against foreigners as represented by the missionary vanguard. Information travelled slowly then. The nearest telegraph stations to Peking were Kiachta on the Russian frontier and Colombo, and there was only periodical communication with either, so that it happened that the official news of the massacre reached the British Foreign Office on July 25th. If we recall what was transpiring in the capitals of Europe during that month of July 1870, we may permit ourselves the speculation that events might have taken quite another turn had the news from China reached the Tuileries a month earlier than it did. The Chinese Government themselves were strongly imbued with this idea. In an interesting interview which Consul Adkins had with Li Hung-chang in October, after he had succeeded to the viceroyalty of Chihli, in which the incident was discussed, the viceroy could not conceal his anxiety. The pith of a Chinese interview usually lies, like that of a lady's letter, in the postscript, and as Mr Adkins was taking leave the governor-general asked him, "Do you think France will make war next year?" (It is worth noting that in his report of the interview Mr Adkins expressed himself "reassured by the governor-general's tone and manner." "I take for granted," he wrote, "that he will not tolerate any outrage on foreigners within his jurisdiction;" and this forecast of Mr Adkins has, we believe, been completely borne out by the event.)
But although the Chinese had escaped a great peril, they were somewhat shaken in their sense of security for the future. The attacks on missionaries had no doubt gone further than was altogether safe, since the indignation of the foreign Powers had been roused almost to the pitch of war. The provincial authorities having had their own way so long, threatened to be too strong for the Central Government, and were likely to embroil them with foreign nations; while in their turn the "literati and gentry," unemployed officials and the leaders of disorder in the great provincial cities, were also becoming too demonstrative for the provincial rulers. It was clear to the authorities that they were face to face with a dangerous situation, and, contrary to their traditional practice, they began to devise measures in order to meet it. The missionary, they now saw, was with them for good, the hope of expelling him by intimidation must be relegated to fanatics of the non-practical school, and it would be imbecile to shut their eyes any longer to facts. No doubt they had allowed things to go too far in the admission of foreigners into the interior, trusting to the resourcefulness of the provinces in insidious means of repression, but to retrace their steps was now impossible. They could no longer hope to expel the missionary, but they would contrive some means to mitigate the dangers of his presence. They would, in short, endeavour to supply, in concert with the treaty Powers, that culpable omission in the treaties by henceforth regulating the missions and defining their rights and obligations.
The result of these cogitations was an elaborate scheme for the control of missions which was published in the summer of 1871, and was addressed to the French Government, and by them communicated to the others. That the Chinese Ministers of themselves took so unprecedented an initiative it is not necessary to believe. The circular was attributed to that greatest of all Chinese statesmen, Wênsiang, but the unseen hand that has done so much to assist China out of her international difficulties may easily be traced in this notable State Paper. In the preamble the case is stated much as we have endeavoured to set it forth: "Trade has in no degree occasioned differences between China and the Powers. The same cannot be said of the missions, which engender ever-increasing abuses. Although in the first instance it may have been declared that the primary object of the missions was to exhort men to virtue, Catholicism, in causing vexation to the people, has produced a contrary effect in China." The circular submitted eight rules for the government of missionary relations with the people and officials in the provinces. The rules referred to (1) the management of orphanages, which it was proposed either to close altogether or to place under severe restrictions; (2) the mixed attendance of women and men at public worship, which, being contrary to Chinese propriety, scandalised the people; (3) the legal status of missionaries in the interior, and the evil consequences of the imperia in imperio which had resulted through the missionaries' separating themselves, and even their native converts, from the jurisdiction of the local authorities; (4) the restriction of proceedings in the case of riots to the persons actively participating in the same; (5) the clear definition of passports, so that missionaries should not be able to move about at will, leaving no trace; (6) the need of strict examination into the character and antecedents of converts; (7) the etiquette to be observed by missionaries in intercourse with officials, the missionaries not to arrogate official style; and (8) the reclamation of alleged sites of ancient churches to be stopped, great injustice having been done to Chinese through their being obliged to surrender properties which they had honestly bought and paid for.
Many things have happened since 1871, and each transaction with foreigners has involved greater and greater encroachment on the Chinese prerogatives. Thus the objection taken in 1871 to the missionaries' arrogating official style has now been so completely waived that the Chinese Government itself bestows official rank on missionaries, and has sanctioned a rule of etiquette for their intercourse with the high Chinese authorities. Thus "bishops are authorised to demand to see viceroys and governors of provinces; vicars-general and archdeacons are authorised to demand to see provincial treasurers, judges, and taotais; other priests are authorised to demand to see prefects of the first and second class, independent prefects, sub-prefects, and other functionaries. The various orders of ecclesiastics are to visit and write to the corresponding orders of Chinese officials on terms of equality, and these officials will naturally respond, according to their rank, with the same courtesies."[20]
This famous circular of 1871 unfortunately perished at its birth: it was roughly attacked in the foreign press, and met with a very cold reception by the Foreign Offices. The English and American Governments seemed satisfied with the reflection that the strictures on missionary practices applied specially to Catholics, and pleased to be able on that account to dismiss it from consideration. From that day to this the evils complained of have gone on increasing and accumulating year by year, outrages and massacres following each other without interruption, and the exacerbation of feeling between foreign missionaries and the Chinese population going on with accelerated speed. The political results to China have assumed in these later years the very concrete form of territorial spoliation, and the Chinese have had abundant experience of the religion which makes nations strong and the people virtuous. That is not to say, however, that there is not good seed already germinating under the snow, which may hereafter bear the peaceable fruits of righteousness. Meanwhile the naked unregulated forces are in open conflict, and he would be a bold prophet who should forecast the issue.
