Both the Treaty and the Railway Agreement were ratified by the Chinese Government on the 18th September, and came into force on that date. The popular rumour which credited the Russian Minister in Peking with the negotiation of these two instruments was, it appears, due to the presence of M. Cassini at the Chinese Capital, where it was considered necessary for him to remain in order to secure their ratification by China. As a glance at a map of North-Eastern Asia will show, the Railway Agreement constituted a concession of the greatest importance to Russia. The Chinese Eastern Railway, the name of the new line which Russia obtained leave to construct, became the eastern section of the Trans-Siberian Railway, connecting Lake Baikal with Vladivostok, Russia’s outlet to the Pacific. The new line, which would traverse Northern Manchuria via Kharbin, Tsitsihar and Hailar, would shorten the distance by more than 300 miles. Moreover, the more level country through which the line was to pass presented few engineering difficulties, as compared with the Amur route, a fact which would greatly diminish the period and the cost of construction. The Agreement was subsequently rendered complete in every detail by the elaboration of what were termed the Statutes of the Chinese Eastern Railway. These were confirmed by the Tsar on the 4th December in the same year. Although these Statutes (given in Rockhill’s Treaties and Conventions) provided that the President of this railway company should be Chinese, the stipulation was purely nominal. The Chinese Eastern Railway, like the Russo-Chinese Bank, was an exclusively Russian undertaking, the raising of the capital required, as well as the construction of the line, being entirely in Russian hands.

Meanwhile the Kaiser, who personally directed the foreign policy of Germany, was forming plans for claiming his share of reward for the triple intervention, and he had, it appears, already approached the Peking Government on this subject, though without any success. What, assuming its existence, was the nature of the understanding arrived at between the Courts of St. Petersburg and Berlin in regard to Far Eastern affairs will probably remain for ever a State secret. In any case, however, it is clear, from his own repeated declarations as to Germany’s need for “a place in the sun,” and from the proceedings of the German Minister at Peking, that he was bent on obtaining a foothold of some sort in China, whence Germany’s future expansion in the Far East might be conveniently developed. His opportunity came in 1897. In the autumn of that year two German missionaries were murdered in the province of Shantung. A few weeks later a German force landed in that province at Kiaochow, one of the two harbours the use of which in time of war Russia had acquired eighteen months before under her secret Treaty with China. M. Gérard in his book above mentioned states that the German Emperor had before the departure of the German ships on this errand informed the Tsar by telegraph of his intentions, and, receiving no reply objecting to the proposed step, took the Tsar’s silence for consent. Germany’s occupation of this strategic position, which had the further advantage of being in a region of the Chinese mainland sufficiently distant from points where other foreign interests were centred to obviate objections on the part of other Powers, and, at the same time, ensure an ample and undisturbed field for German enterprise, was confirmed by a Treaty concluded with China on March 6th, 1898. By this Treaty China granted to Germany a lease for ninety-nine years of the port of Kiaochow and a considerable stretch of “hinterland.” Germany also acquired under it certain rights of railway construction in the neighbourhood of the port.

The author of Japan: The Rise of a Modern Power, tells us, on the authority of a statement said to have been made by Prince Henry of Hohenzollern, that the Kaiser’s next step was to invite the Tsar to take Port Arthur and Ta-lien Wan. Whatever truth there may be in the statement attributed to Prince Henry—M. Gérard thinks the suggestion may have been made in the telegram announcing his own intentions—the fact remains that Germany’s abrupt action resulted in an immediate scramble on the part of several European Powers for various portions of Chinese territory. Russia led the way in these undignified proceedings, for which a harsher word might with justice be substituted. Two months after the occupation of Kiaochow by Germany, Russian men-of-war anchored in Port Arthur. Thither they were followed by British cruisers, and for a moment it looked as if history would repeat itself, and that Russia might have to reckon with British interference in her designs. Other counsels, however, prevailed. The British ships were withdrawn, and on March 27th, three weeks after the conclusion of the Kiaochow Agreement, a similar Treaty was signed at Peking by Li Hung Chang and the Russian Chargé d’Affaires. This Treaty, the text of which was not published by the Russian Government, provided for the lease to Russia of Port Arthur, Ta-lien Wan and adjacent waters for a period of twenty-five years, renewable by arrangement at the expiration of the term. It was further agreed that the right to construct the Chinese Eastern Railway across Northern Manchuria, secured by Russia under the secret Railway Agreement of August 27th, 1896, should be extended so as to include the construction of branch lines from a point on that railway to Ta-lien Wan and other places in the Liaotung peninsula. The Treaty also provided for a subsequent definition of the boundaries of the leased area and—a point of some importance in the light of after events—of a neutral strip of territory separating the Chinese and Russian spheres. Port Arthur, moreover, was declared to be a naval port, and as such closed to all vessels save those of the two contracting parties. Subsequently, on May 7th, a supplementary Agreement, signed at St. Petersburg, defined the boundaries of the leased area, and arranged for their delimitation.

It was not long before France, whose services to China at the time of the triple intervention had, as we have seen, already met with recognition in the shape of the prompt settlement of various outstanding questions, obtained, in her turn, a territorial concession of the same nature—though, perhaps, not so important—as those granted to Germany and Russia. By a Convention signed at Peking on May 27th, 1898, China granted to her a ninety-nine years’ lease for the purpose of a naval station and coaling depôt of the Bay of Kwang-chow and adjacent territory in the peninsula of Leichow, together with the right to construct a railway connecting the bay with the peninsula. The area of this concession was in the province of Kwangsi, which adjoins the French territory of Tonkin.

Unlike the three Powers associated in the triple intervention, whose subsequent action justifies the supposition that they regarded themselves as brokers entitled to a commission for services rendered, Great Britain had no special claim on the goodwill of China. Nevertheless, she joined in the scramble for Chinese territory. A Convention, signed at Peking on June 9th, 1898, gave her an extension of territory at Hongkong under lease for a period of ninety-nine years, the reason assigned for the concession being that this extension was necessary for the proper protection and defence of that colony. Three weeks later (July 1st), by another Convention, signed also at Peking, it was agreed that the Chinese Government, “in order to provide Great Britain with a suitable naval harbour and for the protection of British commerce in the neighbouring seas,” should lease to her Weihaiwei and the adjacent waters “for so long a period as Port Arthur shall remain in the occupation of Russia.” The area thus leased comprised the island of Liu-kung, and all other islands in the bay of Weihaiwei.

In defence of Great Britain’s action it may fairly be pleaded that her interests in China, and in the Far East generally, which were more extensive than those of any other Power, with the possible exception of Japan, made it necessary for her Government to take prompt measures to counteract the effect of any proceedings on the part of other Powers which might be prejudicial to those interests. The political situation created in the Far East by the actions of the three Powers associated in the triple intervention was the reverse of reassuring. Russia’s occupation of Port Arthur was in direct contradiction to the grounds of the joint protest against the annexation of the Liaotung peninsula by Japan. Neither with France nor with Russia at that time were our relations what they afterwards became. Between British and Russian policy there was a scarcely veiled antagonism, while the French and ourselves had long been rivals in China, as elsewhere. The concerted action of these two Powers, not to speak of their support by a third, whose exact relation to her associates was dubious, was thus calculated to give rise to apprehensions which would doubtless have been increased had British Ministers then known all that has since come to light. Additional gravity was given to Germany’s sudden appearance on the scene in a new rôle by, to use M. Gérard’s words, her “occupation by force and at a moment of complete peace of a port belonging to the Empire the integrity of whose territory she claimed to have safeguarded against Japan.” Under these circumstances the British Government may well have felt that it was justified in regarding these proceedings as fraught with possibilities of injury to British interests and prestige, and in adopting what in the light of these occurrences might reasonably be held to assume the character of precautionary measures. Such, beyond a doubt, was the general interpretation given by impartial observers to Great Britain’s action in arranging for her occupation of Weihaiwei. It was, as the terms of the Agreement clearly indicated, a direct counter-move to Russia’s occupation of Port Arthur. As such it was welcomed by Japan, who, when the time for the evacuation of Weihaiwei arrived, willingly handed it over to the Power who was shortly to become her ally.

CHAPTER XXIV
American Protest against Foreign Aggression in China—Principle of “Open Door and Equal Opportunity”—Financial Reform—Operation of Revised Treaties—The Boxer Outbreak—Russia and Manchuria.

In addition to the various Agreements for the occupation of Chinese territory mentioned in the preceding chapter, negotiations were conducted with the Chinese Government about the same time by the European Powers concerned, and also by Japan, for the purpose of obtaining Declarations regarding the non-alienation by China of certain territories which were regarded by them as coming, respectively, within their special spheres of interest. As a result of these negotiations the French Minister at Peking received in March, 1897, a verbal assurance, confirmed later in writing, that the Chinese Government would “in no case, nor under any form, alienate to another Power the island of Hainan off the coast of the province of Kwantung.” In February, 1898, a similar Declaration concerning the riverain provinces of the Yangtse was made to Great Britain. In the following April the assurance previously given to France was extended so as to include the three southern provinces of Yunnan, Kwangsi and Kwantung bordering on Tonkin; while Japan in the same month received an assurance of a corresponding nature regarding the province of Fukien, the Chinese Government signifying its intention “never to cede or lease it to any Power whatsoever.” In thus obtaining from China a Declaration of non-alienation respecting the province of Fukien, similar to those given to Great Britain and France regarding other portions of Chinese territory, Japan established her claim to rank as one of the leading Powers in the Far East, a position which, as will be seen, received further recognition in the following year. Her success in this respect—due to her victory in the war with China, and to the alteration in her status as a nation which resulted from the conclusion of revised treaties with several foreign Powers—was rendered the more noticeable by the failure of Italy, after prolonged negotiations, to gain China’s consent to a territorial concession similar to those granted to other European Powers.

The years 1898 and 1899 witnessed the negotiation by European Powers with each other of two other arrangements relating to China of a somewhat different character. One of these was the Declaration made by Great Britain to Germany on April 19th, 1898, binding herself not to construct any railway connecting Weihaiwei, and the adjoining leased territory, with the interior of the province of Shantung. The other was the Agreement, effected through an exchange of Notes at St. Petersburg on April 28th, 1899, by which the British and Russian Governments recorded their intention to regard, for the purpose of railway concessions, the basin of the Yangtse and the region north of the Great Wall as the special spheres of interest of the two Powers, respectively, confirming, at the same time, the understanding arrived at between them in regard to the railway between Shanhaikwan and Newchwang.

The outbreak of war between the United States and Spain in the spring of 1898 led to the introduction of a new factor into the situation created in the Far East by the events above described. One of the results of the war was the cession of the Philippine Islands to America, who had already, by annexing Hawaii, secured a stepping-stone across the Pacific. By the acquisition of these former Spanish possessions, which provided her with a naval base in the Eastern Pacific for the protection of her commerce in Far Eastern waters, America’s attitude towards Far Eastern questions was at once affected. Hitherto in her relations with the Far East—with China, Japan and Korea—she had maintained a detached attitude in keeping with her traditional policy of non-interference in foreign questions. In China, where she came late into the field, she had been content to follow, at a distance, in the wake of other Powers; sharing in whatever commercial or extra-territorial privileges might be obtained, but never breaking the ice for herself, nor—to her credit, be it said—betraying any aggressive tendencies. As the pioneer of Western nations in putting an end to the seclusion of Japan and Korea, she had opportunities for exercising a powerful influence, of which her traditional policy forbade her to make full use. Regarding both countries somewhat in the light of protégés, her policy in respect to each soon settled down into one of benevolent inaction, varied only by occasional half-hearted opposition to the less complaisant policy of other Governments, whenever the duty of a patron, so to speak, seemed to call for her interposition. We have seen how she was thus led on two occasions in the matter of Treaty revision into a premature encouragement of Japanese ambitions, which was the cause of embarrassment both to herself, and to the nation whose wishes she was willing to further. The course thus pursued by America, which precluded concerted action with other Powers, was in some respects simply an extension to the Far East of the policy she had previously adopted in regard to European questions. Well as the traditional principle of holding aloof from affairs outside of the American continent, through fear of political entanglements, may have suited the conditions of her earlier existence as a nation, a too rigid adherence to this principle, when those conditions were fast disappearing, might lead to consequences more unpleasant than those she sought to avoid. An attitude of detachment carried too far might result in her exclusion from a voice in the regulation of matters of international interest. Towards some such position America appeared to be drifting, when, to borrow the phrase used by Mr. Hornbeck in Contemporary Politics of the Far East, she suddenly “stumbled into World Politics” through her occupation of the Philippines. From that moment her political isolation was ended. She began to take a more active and intelligent interest in Far Eastern questions, though the reluctance to abandon her traditional policy, which was still noticeable in her action when she did move, was liable to be mistaken for timidity.