China under the Empress Dowager

by J. O. P. Bland; Sir E. Backhouse

“From the day when first the foreign Ministers asked to be permitted to present their credentials, nearly six months ago, our statesmen have discussed the question, without arriving at any solution of its difficulties. First, they debated whether the Ministers should be granted audience at all, and having agreed upon this, they proceeded to discuss whether they should be compelled to kneel.

“In discussing this matter with certain minor officials, it has occurred to me to wonder wherein really lies the gravity of the question sufficient to justify all this bother and excitement? As Mencius remarks, ‘Why should the Superior Man engage in altercation with birds and beasts?’

“I have heard, and believe, that the rulers of foreign nations are deposed by their subjects for all the world like pawns on a chess board. I have seen with my own eyes the foreigners who live in Peking walking abroad, preceded by the females of their household either on foot or in sedan chairs; the men folk following meekly in their rear, like servants—all unashamed. They have made some score of treaties with China, containing at least ten thousand written characters. Is there a word in any one of them concerning reverence for parents, or the cultivation of virtue and respect for the nine canons of rightful conduct? No! Is there one word in any one of them as to the observance of ceremony, as to duty, integrity and a proper sense of shame, the four cardinal principles of our nation? Again, no! All that they speak of is material profit. ‘Such and such a clause implies benefits or profits for China.’ They think only of profit, and with the meretricious hope of profit they beguile the Chinese people. These men know not even the meaning of duty and ceremony, wisdom and good faith, yet we profess, forsooth, to expect them to act as if they were endowed with the five cardinal virtues! They know not the meaning of the Heaven-ordained relationship between Sovereign and Minister, between father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger brother, friend and friend—yet we propose to require them to conform to the five principles of duty! It seems to me that one might as well bring together dogs and horses, goats and pigs, in a public hall and compel these creatures to perform the evolutions of the dance!

“If we insist upon their reverently kneeling, in what manner will it increase the lustre of the Throne’s prestige? If we excuse them from kneeling, how can this possibly affect the Sovereign’s majesty?

“But our statesmen hold that long and careful deliberation before assenting to the foreigners’ wishes in this matter will cause the latter to say: ‘If so great pressure be required to extract even this trifling concession from China, how small must be our hopes of future success in dealing with great matters.’ In this way, it is thought, we may cause their everlasting demands on China to cease, and we should thus gain, while they lose, prestige. But, in my humble opinion, our nation’s prestige depends not on any foreigners’ estimate of us, nor is their humiliation to be brought about in this way. If once they perceive that we attach a real importance to their kneeling at audience, and that we are loth to exempt them from this ceremony, while at the same time they are fully aware that we dare not go to war with them, they will simply insist the more firmly on their demands and threaten us with war if we fail to comply. Our weakness once exposed, they will stick at nothing.

“I have heard that, in their despatches and treaties, the puny hobgoblin or petty monsters whom they have the audacity to call ‘Emperors’ are placed on a level of equality with His Sacred Majesty! If our statesmen can brook an outrage like this and feel no shame, why should they trouble themselves about the foreign Envoys’ refusal to kneel? Two years ago, when the Russian barbarians were pressing in upon China from Ili and all the North-west, when they were seizing vast stretches of our territory, and carrying out their policy of aggression on a scale unparalleled in all the history of our relations with barbarians; when their crafty and deep-laid plans threatened the Empire with the gravest dangers—our statesmen showed no sense of shame. But now, we are to believe that there is humiliation to China in the Ministers’ unwillingness to kneel! Our statesmen appear to imagine that if foreign nations decline to comply with the formalities of Chinese etiquette, China will thereby be disgraced, but in my humble opinion, compliance on their part would jeopardise our country. From ancient times immemorial the policy of the Government has been guided by two main factors, viz., the exigencies of the moment and the amount of force available to carry out a given line of action. At the present moment China’s position does not justify her in contending for this point and our national forces are quite inadequate to impose our will upon any other nation. China should therefore seek to develop efficiency and in the meantime resort to compromises.

“A disciple of Confucius once asked the Sage in what lay the art of government. The Master replied that the three first requisites were, a sufficiency of food, a sufficiency of troops and the confidence of the people. The disciple then asked which of these three could be dispensed with, in case of urgent necessity? Confucius replied, ‘Dispense first with the troops and next with the food supply.’ From this we may learn that the Sage, aiming at perfection in the art of government, would approve of no rash or ill-considered action in deciding a matter of this kind. A clear course of action should be definitely pre-arranged by careful thought; there should be no question of any hasty or immature decision, calculated only to involve the country in difficulties. Our statesmen ought, in the first instance, to have examined this Audience question in all its bearings, weighing carefully the issues involved, and should have considered whether, in view of the relative strength of China and foreign nations, resistance was advisable. If China were not well aware of her own weakness, she would insist upon her rights, and without weighing the relative importance in each case; but as, in the present instance, she does not feel strong enough to insist, the Ministers should have been told at once that the Throne would waive the question of their kneeling at audience, and that His Majesty would dispense in their case with the formalities and ceremonies required by the etiquette of the Chinese Court. By so doing we should have avoided the outward and visible manifestations of weakness, and foreigners would have been led to perceive how small is the importance we attach to them as individuals. Would not this be an example of enlightenment and statesmanship to impress Chinese and barbarians alike?

“But no; we must needs begin by raising objections to receiving the foreign Envoys, and then, having been compelled to yield this point, we proceeded to require them to kneel at audience. The only possible result of this will be that we shall finally have to yield to their protest; but our acquiescence will perforce be performed with bad grace and with every appearance of an act performed under compulsion. It was precisely in this way that we blundered when we made the Treaty of Tientsin. I am convinced that the Throne’s position will be an unenviable one if the views of these statesmen be adopted, and would suggest as a solution of the difficulty, that His Majesty should decide for himself, and inform his Councillors that the question is really one of minor importance. The foreign Ministers are not Chinese subjects; why, then, should they conform to a Chinese ceremony? If they were to do so, and if the ceremonial were slovenly or awkwardly performed, might it not become a burlesque? And if the foreign Ministers were thus made to look ridiculous, would not China be violating the principle which lays down that we must ‘treat strangers from afar with courtesy and consideration’? If it should happen—as well might be—that the spectators should be unable to control their mirth at so ridiculous a spectacle, might not the humiliation felt by the foreigners at their discomfiture, and their consequent rage, lead them to declare war against China? It seems, therefore, advisable that the Throne should issue a Decree excusing the Envoys from performing the ceremonies of our Court, and, in the event of their ignorantly offending against any of the rules of etiquette, that we should exercise a wise forbearance. Our statesmen should refrain from querulous arguments; they should bear in mind that to dispute with these foreigners is unworthy of us. In this they will display the perfection of magnanimity. At the same time it should be carefully explained that this Decree is an act of clemency, of the Emperor’s own initiative, and contrary to the advice of his Ministers. It must not serve as a precedent by reason of which foreigners may be led to demand other concessions from China, or to coerce her in other directions. By these means we shall preserve our self-respect, and at the same time prevent all possibility of our people attempting reprisals against foreigners, to avenge what they might regard as an insult to China. And for the rest, let us proceed to develop our strength, biding our time.

“One word only would I add, of warning. It is possible that the audacious and treacherous foreigners may endeavour to address His Majesty at audience. Our statesmen should be prepared in advance with the proper reply to make in such a case, so that they may avoid being put to sudden confusion.

“I, the writer of this worthless Memorial, am but an ignorant inhabitant of a wild and remote district, and know nothing of affairs of State. Greatly daring and of rash utterance, I present this my Memorial, knowing the while that in so doing I risk the penalty of death.”