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.