Comes into the sphere of international relations in 1866—Illegal propagandism followed by persecutions—France adopts the cause of the missions—Calls upon China as suzerain to punish Koreans—Which failing, French Minister proclaims annexation of Korea—Naval expedition repulsed—American naval expedition repulsed in 1871.
It was in the year 1866 that foreign aggression first complicated the relations between China and her tributaries. The kingdom of Korea had with more consistency and more success than either China or Japan secluded itself absolutely from foreign intrusion. Nevertheless, the ubiquitous Jesuit had found his way there, under desperate subterfuges; for if the foreigner in general was proscribed, the foreign religionist was anathema to the rulers of Korea. The laws of the country were draconic in their severity against all priests or pretenders to supernatural authority; but the zeal of the Catholic propaganda defied the laws, though not always with impunity. "Persecutions," in fact, occasionally broke out, and "massacres" was a not inappropriate description of the repressive measures adopted by the Government in vindication of what it considered the law of the State. The French Government, or at least its representative in Peking, resolved to espouse the cause of the persecuted missionaries in 1866, and to make reprisals on the King of Korea. But that country being a vassal state, the demand was first made formally on the suzerain, that he should cause the Korean persecutors to be punished and the missionaries avenged. This was not only prejudging the particular case, but was yet another instance of foreigners forcing a formula on China, and making her answerable to a tribunal of whose jurisdiction she had no cognisance. The relations of China to the surrounding States which acknowledged her suzerainty were vague and various, imperfectly understood by Western States, as was sufficiently proved in the Burma Convention concluded between Great Britain and China in 1886. But the French chargé d'affaires recognised no debatable ground such as even in the international comity of the West differentiates one dependent State from another, and one suzerain Power from another. In the British system alone the diversity in the relations of the members to the head is sufficient to exclude the application of any general rule. While the touchstone of war would no doubt reduce all to one level, yet in the matter of administrative responsibility what single rule could embrace, for example, India, Malta, the self-governing colonies, the Transvaal, and the African Protectorates? M. de Bellonet, however, was not embarrassed by any dubitations about the clean-cut rule to be enforced on China and Korea. He simply demanded that the suzerain should punish the vassal, failing which, he would take the affair into his own hands. Logical, no doubt, and not unreasonable, assuming the quarrel to be just. But the French chargé went a step further in adjudging the actual dissolution of the family compact and sequestration of the inferior kingdom. On Prince Kung's declining responsibility for the Korean persecutions, M. de Bellonet, without further ado, annexed Korea to the empire of France, dethroned the king, and posted placards about the streets of Peking promulgating the fact. To Prince Kung he addressed a weighty despatch, in which he said, "The same day on which the King of Korea laid his hands on my unhappy countrymen was the last of his reign. He himself declared its end, which I, in my turn, solemnly declare to-day."[14]
This was carrying the question beyond the scope of international law.
Taking an analogy from common life, a father may neglect to correct a mischievous son, and thus leave his neighbours free to take the law into their own hands, but their right to chastise or prosecute does not include that of annulling the parental relationship, and of making a bondman of the offender. Force, of course, may effect such a rupture in the connection between nations, but in this case the force had not yet been applied. Admiral Roze proceeded with a squadron to the mouth of the Han, the waterway to the Korean capital, bombarded forts, and left his name to an island which faces the port of Chemulpo. The incident was then at an end.
But not the effects of it. It was to Chinese and Koreans a flash of the Röntgen rays that revealed the innermost hearts of the foreigners with a vividness not to be forgotten; it was the whole missionary question, from the Eastern point of view, in a nutshell. To violate the laws and teach the natives to do so, and then appeal to foreign Governments to back them in this insidious form of rebellion—that was the function of the missionaries. The foreign Government thereupon lays claim to the territory, and so the conspiracy is crowned. In the face of such an unveiling of motives the chance of the Chinese statesmen being led by the friendly counsel poured constantly into their ears by the foreign Ministers in Peking must have been small indeed.
About the same time a small American vessel called the General Sherman, with a cargo of notions and some passengers, including one English missionary, made her way through the archipelago which fringes the coast into the inner waters of Korea. She was never again heard of, and the fate of crew and passengers was for long a matter of report and surmise. At last, in 1868, a United States ship of war, the Shenandoah, was sent to the Korean coast to get information about the General Sherman. Nothing whatever was learned. Then Mr George F. Seward, consul-general in Shanghai, advocated a mission to Korea with a sufficient force to ensure respect. His persevering recommendations prevailed with the Government at Washington, and a squadron was equipped in 1871 to proceed to Korea and attempt to open the country, the admiral being furnished with copies of the Japan treaties of 1854 and 1858 as models. The Americans at once came into collision with the Korean troops, bombarded their forts, and defeated with considerable loss a military force marshalled to resist them. But no negotiations were possible. The Korean Government remained impervious to remonstrance and uncompromising in its refusal of intercourse. The following characteristic letter, addressed by the Korean authorities to Admiral Rogers, tersely expresses their attitude of resolute isolation:—
In the year 1868 a man of your nation, whose name was Febiger, came here and communicated and went away; why cannot you do the same? In 1866 a people called the French came here, and we refer you to them for what happened. This people has lived 4000 years in the enjoyment of its own civilisation, and we want no other. We trouble no other nation—why do you trouble us? Our country is in the extreme east, and yours in the extreme west; for what purpose do you come so many thousand miles across the sea? Is it to inquire about the ship destroyed [the General Sherman]? Her men committed piracy and murder, and they were punished with death. Do you want our land? That cannot be. Do you want intercourse with us? That cannot be either.
The American ships withdrew, as the French had done, leaving the peninsula once more to its fate.
Previously to this a piratical expedition was attempted by a German in a North-German steamer, instigated and piloted by a French priest. Its purpose was to desecrate the tombs of the kings, with a view to carrying off the golden treasures with which they were believed to be buried.
The three fiascos left no outward trace in the current of affairs in China, and diplomatic intercourse proceeded in the capital as if the Korean peninsula did not exist. Let it not be supposed, however, that the statesmen of Peking failed to take these exhibitions to heart, although they maintained the strictest reserve on the subject. Christian proselytism and foreign domination were once more discovered in active alliance, justifying all the suspicions of the Asiatic nations.