The question may now be asked whether China, which covers an area equal to that of Europe, and is even more thickly peopled, is less homogeneous than our own Continent. Does there exist between the various Chinese provinces the same differences that mark each of the nations that in the aggregate form Europe? From the geographical and climatic point of view it is evident that the difference is not very great, although China possesses very high mountains only on her Western frontier, and her plains are much more extensive and continuous. But from the ethnical point of view it would be an exaggeration to state that there is much analogy between China and Europe, since the former is certainly much the more homogeneous. The different countries of our Continent are inhabited by peoples who are only remotely related to each other, and who are merely united by the ties of a common civilization, whereas amongst the subjects of the Son of Heaven the ties are much stronger and the physical resemblance is more marked. I am, of course, speaking of the inhabitants of China proper only—of the eighteen provinces, to which might be added a nineteenth, Ching-king, or Southern Manchuria, now in process of colonization by the Chinese. The various tributary peoples belonging to the Celestial Empire, such as the Mongolians, the Thibetans and the Turki in Eastern Turkestan, are absolutely distinct from each other and from the predominant race; but although the dependencies which they cover constitute two-thirds of the surface of the entire Empire, they only form a twentieth of the entire population, and do not share in its Government.
It should be observed that the absence of any sympathy between the inhabitants of the different Chinese provinces might have been found quite recently exemplified in Europe, not merely between nation and nation, but between province and province in the same country, and that linguistic variations are still noticeable even in the most homogeneous countries. History is full of instances of intestine troubles which have existed in nearly every European nation, and it is but thirty years since the Germans were at war with each other.
I have often heard related the misadventures of two Celestials, natives of different provinces, who, whilst travelling in Europe, met one day only to discover that their sole means of making themselves understood was by speaking English. But does not this story recall the recent Slav Congress in Austria, whose debates had to be held in German in order that they might be followed by all the delegates? The existence of patois and dialects results from the inhabitants of certain districts having neither the time nor the money to go beyond their village further than the nearest market-town. Then, again, education in China does not tend, as in Europe, to produce unity of language, since its writing is quite independent of pronunciation, and the innumerable letters of its alphabet represent, not sounds, but ideas. The lack of any spirit of patriotism may be largely attributed to this state of absolute isolation, to which may be added a general and very profound ignorance. But patriotism as we understand it is, after all, a matter of modern sentiment, therefore not to be looked for in so antiquated a nation as the Chinese.
It matters little whether there be a common origin or not, since our notions of race are very difficult to define, and modern anthropological and ethnographical discoveries tend more and more towards the acceptance of the theory of the existence of distinct races. Whereas the patois of the ten northernmost provinces are merely dialects of the Manchurian languages, those of the south, especially of Fo-kien and Canton, are totally different, and apparently confirm the theory that the Chinese invaders who came from the north-east found the land already inhabited by a people whom they assimilated, precisely as they are doing in our time in Manchuria, and as did the Romans in ancient Gaul.
The entire population of China, excepting a few obscure mountain tribes, the remainder, possibly, of the autochthones of the South, whatever their origin, have for centuries moulded themselves on a civilization that penetrates far deeper into the details of every-day life than any known in Europe. The result is a greater uniformity among the people who have adopted it than will be found among men who follow a less rigid code that permits of greater latitude and affords a freer scope for the exercise of individuality. Many peculiarities in the Chinese character appear at first contradictory, even to those who have lived long in the country, and who assert that no European can ever thoroughly understand a Chinaman because his mind is so differently constituted.
The most striking characteristic of the Chinese, says Mr. Arthur H. Smith, an American missionary who has lived twenty-two years in China, in his admirable book ‘Chinese Characteristics,’ is their remarkable manner of ‘facing’ a thing. To save appearances, or to ‘face’ a difficulty cunningly rather than boldly, is the endeavour of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of the Son of Heaven, and is the key, moreover, to a great many other matters that might otherwise appear incomprehensible. Every Chinaman considers himself an actor, whose public words, acts, and deeds have nothing in common with reality. The most praiseworthy and even the most innocent of actions, unless it be performed in a certain way, will only cover its author with shame and ridicule. If a fault is committed, the guilty party is expected to deny it with the utmost effrontery in spite of convincing evidence, and on no account must he confess himself guilty, even if he is obliged to repair the injury done. From the highest to the lowest, the Chinese entertain a profound respect for shamming. A boy caught stealing will slip the coveted object up his sleeves, stoop down and pretend to pick it up, and with the smile of an angel present it to his master, saying, ‘Here is what you have lost.’ A little over a hundred years ago the mandarins who were escorting Macartney, the English Ambassador, into the presence of the Son of Heaven, profited by his ignorance of their language to place over his carriage an inscription to the effect that it contained ‘the Ambassador bringing tribute from the Kingdom of England,’ and thus kept up the fiction of the universal sovereignty of their lord and master.
Undoubtedly the observance of a certain amount of etiquette is both useful and praiseworthy, and so considered by all civilized nations; but Chinese etiquette is the most punctilious and complicated that was ever imagined, and never on any account to be neglected for a single instant. This excessive attention to outward forms, which, if they be but observed, may conceal any kind of iniquity, explains the fact that in China there is a deeper gulf between theory and practice than in any other country in the world. That it has always been so may be questioned, but at present the morals of Confucius have long since been lost in a code of etiquette which defines virtue as consisting in the observance to the letter of the three hundred rules of ceremony and the three thousand regulations of conduct, without paying the least attention to the spirit in which they were originally formulated.
It is in the system of Government in China that the contrast between precept and practice becomes most evident. As Mr. Henry Norman remarks with hardly exaggerated severity, ‘Every Chinese official, with the possible exception of one in a thousand, is a liar, a thief and a tyrant!’ Examples confirming this assertion are very numerous, and even the celebrated Li Hung-chang cannot be included in the list of those officials who are noted for their honesty, since he had to disgorge a great part of the immense fortune he had accumulated—twenty millions, it is reputed—to save his head during the Chino-Japanese War, when he had to purchase the goodwill of many Court dignitaries, eunuchs and others, notwithstanding which, money matters still occupy a great deal of his attention. I had the honour while I was at Peking to dine at the French Legation in the company of this exalted personage, on the occasion of the visit of the Admiral commanding the French Fleet in the Far East and several officers of his staff. Li conversed through the intermediary of an interpreter named Ma, to whom he spoke in the Fo-kien, his native dialect; it appears he speaks Manchu very badly. He put to each of the guests several polite questions usual among Orientals, inquired after their rank, their age, and invariably wound up his courteous inquiries by asking: ‘Well, and what is your salary?’ With us the income of an official is a matter of very little importance, but with the famous mandarin it was the essential.
For centuries the administration of China has been as corrupt as it is to-day, but for all this it has never driven the people to rebellion. It is true that occasionally there are local agitations, whose chiefs go so far as to pounce upon offending representatives of authority and convey them to the capital of the district, or province, to demand their degradation, which is more often than not accorded—a fact which inspired an English paper at Shanghai to descant on the ‘democratic manner in which the Chinese participate in their government.’ Oppression tempered by revolt is the rule which prevails in the Celestial Empire, but there is no fear of a general revolution against so degenerate a system. This administrative machine, however, which appears to us to be so detestable, only impedes progress, but does not affect the population, which is accustomed to routine habits hundreds of years old, and has not the remotest idea that a reform is either necessary or practicable. When an enterprising man wishes to introduce even the most insignificant of modern trades, he invariably attracts the attention of the mandarins, to whom he is obliged to apply for permission to carry on his novelty, and will only obtain it after much bribery and a promise to pay such a huge percentage on his profits as to render the returns of his venture too insignificant to be worth his continuing it. But for the uncomplaining and unprogressive, who have nothing to do with administrative affairs, life in China flows easily and quietly enough. The taxes are very light, especially for the peasantry, who live by what they harvest in their fields, or for the workpeople, whose wants are very small They fall, however, heavily upon commercial transactions and the transport of merchandise, are a great impediment to commerce, and though they never affect them directly, for their poverty is far too great to permit of their buying anything, they contribute indirectly to keep the inferior classes in a state of abject poverty. According to the investigations of Herr von Brandt, former German Minister to Peking, and a man who has studied China profoundly, the land tax in China reaches £5,250,000, being about 3s. per acre in the North, with a maximum of 13s. in the South. This is not much when we consider the intense activity of Chinese agriculture, which extracts from the soil almost everywhere two harvests annually. The total of the Budget, according to the same authority, reaches 100,000,000 taels, or £15,000,000. Other authorities estimated it as high as £24,000,000, but even this is not excessive. The following is Von Brandt’s account of the different sources of revenue of the Chinese Empire:
| Inland Revenue | £5,250,000 |
| Treaty port Customs (obtained by the International Customs Service) | 3,450,000 |
| Right for transit in the interior (likin) | 1,800,000 |
| Native Customs and tax on native opium | 1,500,000 |
| Salt tax | 1,500,000 |
| Sale of titles and honorary distinctions | 750,000 |
| Tribute of rice | 450,000 |
| Licenses, etc. | 300,000 |
| Total | £15,000,000 |