China clings to universal sovereignty—Demonstration of same towards Korea—Irritating to Japanese—Their aspirations in Korea—Insurrection in southern districts—Chinese troops sent there—Japanese simultaneously occupy Korean capital—War between China and Japan—China defeated—Causes and consequences—General sympathy with Japan.
China clings to universal sovereignty—Demonstration of same towards Korea—Irritating to Japanese—Their aspirations in Korea—Insurrection in southern districts—Chinese troops sent there—Japanese simultaneously occupy Korean capital—War between China and Japan—China defeated—Causes and consequences—General sympathy with Japan.
We have seen that up to the end of 1892 the Chinese Government clung to the figment of universal sovereignty. Perhaps it was the figment that clung to them, they not knowing how to drop it. When they had, under stress, seemed to concede the principle of equality, it was not done heartily, but to serve a momentary purpose. Like a belligerent who continues a guerilla warfare after concluding peace, they fought inch by inch for the rags of the old prerogative after having by treaty surrendered it. It had been long predicted that their refusal or inability to bring their theories into agreement with patent facts, and to come into line with the Powers of the world, must lead to tragic consequences. Foreign nations laughed at the Chinese pretension as an innocent archaic survival. But those individuals to whose lot it fell, in their own persons, to suffer the continued humiliation which wasa consequence of the survival, did not find the comedy of the situation quite so congenial. The high-spirited nation living in the closest neighbourhood to China, using its language and literature, was naturally more galled by the Chinese assumption than those distant peoples who only suffered in the persons of their diplomatic agents. Though it would be more than the evidence warrants to say that the pretension of the Chinese Government was directly provocative of the events of 1894, yet it is certain that it had a full share in filling the cup. Nowhere had the Chinese conception of supremacy been exemplified in a more uncompromising form than in her relations with Korea. Her position as suzerain was a reality. She had in times past defended her tributary at great cost, had marked the relationship by permanent monuments, and had maintained the rites necessary to keep her title alive. As late as 1890 the tributary formalities were repeated conspicuously before the world. In that year the "Grand" Queen-Dowager Chao of Korea died. According to custom the king despatched a messenger to Peking to report the death to his suzerain. The envoy presented his papers kneeling before the vice-president of the Board of Rites. He was the bearer of a petition from the king descanting on the miseries of his country, and expressing regret that, owing to the straitened circumstances of his Court, he might be unable to carry out all the ceremonies required for the entertainment of the usual mission of condolence from the emperor; therefore, as "an infant trusting to the tender mercies of his parents," the king begged that not a mission, but a message only, might be returned to him by the hands of his own envoy. The imperial decree in reply to thispetition, while admitting the facts of the situation as set forth by the king, nevertheless announced that the customary usage must be maintained, only an important concession would be made to the poverty of Korea in the route which would be followed by the new mission. Previous envoys had made the whole journey between the two capitals by land, and after entering Korean territory they had to pass many stations in their slow march to the capital, involving much expense to the country through which they travelled. All this would be saved on the present occasion by the two commissioners travelling by sea, and landing at Chemulpo, a few miles only from the capital. The king had to submit to the modified burden, if such he really considered it. The ceremonies observed were elaborate and impressive. Frequent prostrations by Korean officials before the emperor's tablet, and before the Imperial Commissioners, introduced the proceedings; afterwards the king was taken charge of by the Chinese master of ceremonies, led through a complicated ritual, and told to bend, kneel,kotow, and stand erect at so many different stages that the mere reading of the official account of them is bewildering. The reporter's conclusion gives the gist of the whole ceremonial from the Chinese point of view: "The emperor's consideration for his vassal State as evinced by his thoughtfulness in matters pertaining to the mission is fathomless. How admirable and satisfactory! And how glorious!"
All this was unexceptionably correct, and in its fantastic way expressed an actuality not to be contested. Yet to the Japanese, with their antagonistic policy, we can well understand that this renewed assertion of the Chinese suzerainty, after the convention of 1885, musthave been highly irritating. Scarcely less so was the superior position habitually assigned to the Chinese Resident over all the other foreign representatives at the Korean Court. He alone at all times had the ear of the king; he was the only one privileged to enter the palace in his sedan chair, the others having to leave theirs at the gate and walk. While abstaining from interference in small things, the Chinese Resident did, in fact, direct the national policy of Korea so far as such a thing could be said to exist.
As the affairs of Korea formed the occasion, if not the cause, of the Japanese War in 1894, it might seem desirable to refer once more to the troubles and misgovernment of that country. To explain them would be quite impossible, for to say that there are wheels within wheels, intrigue within intrigue, the whole revolving round a pivot of sordid corruption, is perhaps the only general account that can be given of the state of the Government and of its official hierarchy. But the conflict between China and Japan held on its way through the labyrinth of local intrigue, and eventually produced a result which, strange to say, seems never to have been anticipated by any one outside the Government circles of Japan. The energetic Chinese Resident at the Korean Court may perhaps have been needlessly ostentatious in asserting the legitimate paramountcy of China, but the aggression of the Japanese in various parts of the country, and the extravagant claims they founded upon these aggressions, really called for a champion of Korean independence, a function which Yuan Shih-kai[32]filled with considerable ability. The subordination of Korea to China was nowhere visibleexcept in Court relations. The subjugation of the peninsula by the Japanese, on the other hand, was rapidly bringing the population itself into bondage to alien merchants, adventurers, and usurers, actively supported by their own Government. If they had had the patience to wait a few years, the Japanese must have won Korea by energetic infiltration alone.
But these things did not move fast enough for the settled ambition of Japan, which she with diligence, unanimity, and wonderful secrecy determined to develop by force of arms. It would be idle to seek for the causes of the war elsewhere than in this forward national policy of Japan. Alert as she had been to seize every chance that offered of detaching Korea from her allegiance to China, her preparations were not sufficiently complete to justify her unmasking her whole policy until 1894, when the grand opportunity for which she had been waiting, if she did not actively assist in bringing it about, presented itself. What proved to be an ill-advised interference of China in the internal affairs of Korea furnished the occasion. An insurrection had broken out in the southern part of the peninsula, and the king had no forces to put it down. Various versions had been circulated of the extent and character of the insurrection; but when it had continued for some time, and nothing was done to check it, the advisers of the Chinese Government became apprehensive of interference by some foreign Power for the restoration of order. Strangely enough, Japan was the very last quarter from which this danger was anticipated. The Chinese at length summoned resolution to send a force to the king's assistance to put down the insurrection, but whether theking in his heart desired this armed interference it is impossible for us to say.
Li Hung-chang was personally opposed to any such expedition, and when goaded to action from Peking, where the bellicose spirit had been generated, he pointed out that no request had been received from the king. This omission was also remarked upon by the practical Admiral Ting, and both may have hoped that the absence of so important a link in the chain would enable them to avoid the overt action which they had the best grounds for deprecating. Such a hope, if it existed, was of brief duration; for the King of Korea was induced, by influences brought to bear on him, "to place himself in order" and implore his suzerain for assistance, which the suzerain could no longer withhold. Then was Li Hung-chang pressed by that body whose characteristic was the negation of initiative, the Tsungli-Yamên, and like a sluggish horse which once takes the bit in its teeth, the Yamên became as impatient for action as in all its previous history it had been resolute in evasion. When but a few days had elapsed since the issue of the order, and the troops were not yet embarked, the Ministers, quite ignorant of what was involved in sending a military force across the sea, began to jeer Li Hung-chang on his delay, hinting that he was perhaps growing stale with age. The troops were, nevertheless, despatched all too soon. On their landing at Yashan in Southern Korea, the insurrection immediately collapsed: such was the prestige of the imperial authority.
In order to comply with the letter of the Li-Ito convention China notified Japan officially of the despatch of these troops, some 2000 in all, andof the purpose for which they were sent. But Japan had no need to wait for any such formal intimation. She had her Intelligence Department, remarkably alert. Japanese—not perhaps always known as such—were employed in the Chinese official bureaus, even in the most confidential departments, while Japanese in disguise swarmed in all the military centres. The Chinese telegraph service has no secrets from any one who thinks it worth his while to possess them. Consequently every detail of the preparation, every point in the discussion, and every step in embarkation, was punctually telegraphed by the Japanese consul to the Foreign Office in Tokio. Hence it was that Japanese troops arrived in Korea simultaneously with the Chinese, only they numbered 10,000 against 2000, and instead of being assigned to the region of the insurrection, in accordance with the provisions of the Li-Ito convention, they marched straight to the capital and took possession of the king. The insurrection having collapsed, the Chinese troops were under orders of withdrawal, and would have returned home in the same transports that conveyed them to Korea but for the unaccountable, and of course illegitimate, presence of Japanese troops at the capital. Notwithstanding the provocation to retain the Chinese troops in Korea as a counterbalance to those, five times more numerous, which had been sent by Japan, the Chinese authorities were advised by their best friends to recall their troops, even though the Japanese should thereby be apparently left in possession of the field. The Chinese would in that case have maintained an unassailably correct position, and Japan would have had to dispense with her pretexts for war. Evacuation by the Chinese had beenactually decided upon, and the steamer Kowshing was chartered for the purpose of bringing back the troops. Before the measure was carried out, however, other counsels prevailed, and that very ship was employed in conveying more troops to reinforce the first expedition, and in the midst of pretended negotiations for an arrangement between the two Powers, the Japanese sank the Kowshing on the high sea with all on board.
It is usual, as a matter of form, if nothing else, to assign some specific cause for a war; but though many able writers have essayed to explain the Japanese action in 1894, they have all of them left the question in greater obscurity than they found it. Nor did the formal declaration of war by the Mikado throw any light on the subject. A Japanese statesman being asked what the war was about, replied bluntly, "It is to defeat China," and the most elaborate exposition of motives or policy does not carry us perceptibly further than this concise and straightforward statement. The Chinese Government itself held precisely the same view as to the object of the war, though its perceptions were so obscured that it was quite unaware of its incapacity for defence. Neither did it during the actual progress of hostilities realise the cause of its defeat. Indeed there is no evidence to show that China has even to this day discovered the secret of her impotence.
The course and immediate consequence of the war itself have been set forth in many books, and are so well known as to render it superfluous to enter into any detail here. A few general points only need be mentioned as a key to what followed.
1. Russia took unusual pains to dissuade Japan from engaging in the war, pointing out in clear terms that her interests would not allow her to be an indifferent spectator of any changes on the continent of Asia.
2. Great Britain next endeavoured to patch up the supposed quarrel—which could never be defined in words—between China and Japan, and on the day on which her agent in Tokio expressed himself confident that the differences, so far as he understood them, would be arranged without recourse to war, the British chartered transport Kowshing was sunk with 1200 men on board.
3. The solution of the question which would have reconciled the views of the four Powers more immediately concerned was the neutralisation of Korea. Great Britain, Russia, and Japan were of one mind on this subject, and China would have hailed such an escape from her chronic embarrassment respecting Korea. Why, then, was no attempt made to bring about such a solution? Want of co-ordination, it would appear; diplomatic paralysis. Though the views of each Power separately ascertained were identical, none of them would speak first, and there was no fifth party to assume the initiative in bringing them to a common understanding. The blame of this must be equally distributed, though in point of fact there were degrees of responsibility which it would be useless now to recall. It is only one example the more of the great gap which often yawns between professional diplomacy and practical politics.
The issue of the war was a foregone conclusion, both by sea and land. China had no army, and the more numerous her levies the more helpless they were beforea disciplined enemy. The navy failed precisely where it was expected to fail. It was an incomplete machine, neglected and in disorder, deficient in many essential things. Worst of all, there was no heart in it. Captain Lang, R.N., and other British officers had been expelled from the service through a conspiracy of the captains in 1890, and thenceforth its deterioration became rapid. The efficiency of the navy for its main purpose was the last thing considered by the cabal. They relied absolutely on the diplomatic resources of Li Hung-chang to save them from any possible trial of strength, and refused to face an alternative even by way of argument. Bravery was by no means lacking in the ranks, nor professional education among the officers. There were some who had Nelson's maxims at the tip of their tongue, and there were some who added to a thorough naval training the spirit of devotion which makes heroes. But these qualities were isolated and incoherent; there was no tradition to render them fruitful, no martial spirit, no disgrace for the coward, no honour for the valiant. The fleet was a body, defective enough at that, but without a soul. The minds of the captains being set on quite other objects than the efficiency of their service, when the crisis threatened they were intent only on evading collisions. The valour of the admiral, the fine sense of duty of individual officers, and the fighting qualities of a considerable body of the seamen, were swamped in the prevailing pusillanimity of the service; the choice spirits were discouraged by the fatuous neglect at headquarters to supply the ordinary necessaries of warfare. It was the writer's fortune to make a passage in a Chinese protected cruiser in September 1894, afew days before the great naval action off the Yalu, and it was most pathetic to hear the defects pointed out by the captain and first lieutenant—defects in ammunition for the guns mounted, absence of gun crews, so that in action men would have to be taken from one gun to another and put to work for which they had no training, everywhere the ship spoiled for want of the ha'porth of tar. That particular vessel was not disgraced in the Yalu fight, but was brought into Port Arthur by the superhuman exertions of her officers, her iron deck beams twisted by the fire and her plates red hot. A second conversation with the captain and first lieutenant after the action was but a painful commentary on that of the week before. The one was prediction, the other fulfilment. Perhaps the state of the navy could not be more forcibly illustrated than by the fact that the fleet was led into action at the Yalu by a German military officer.
China was indeed defeated, amid the applause of Europe and the whole world, and the primeval law of violence received a new consecration. This is the one outcome of the war which seems likely to leave a permanent impress on the surface of our civilisation, for the spontaneous outburst from the four corners of the earth cannot be referred to any venal or wire-pulling agency. There had been foreign wars in China before, wars entered upon after long discussion and accumulating causes of quarrel. Their merits divided the opinion of the world—they divided even the nations that waged them; and the opposition was on one occasion strong enough to overturn a British Government that had actually entered into hostilities against China. But in 1894 there was not a dissentient voice. Thecause of the war was not known and not inquired into, the universal enthusiasm was simply for the victor, as such, without regard to anything but his military prowess. That was what the world fell down and worshipped. Not any righteous cause, or racial sympathy, or community of interest, inspired their acclamations; for none of these things were considered or understood by the masses who chorussed the triumph of the conqueror of China. English pens and tongues beyond all others urged the victorious Power to make crushing conditions of peace, and in the clamour traditional landmarks were forgotten. The policy of saving China, the great English milch cow, from destruction, which had been patiently followed by Great Britain for forty years, was thus suddenly submerged in a wave of warlike enthusiasm.
Press-made feeling was both stronger and had more influence on the action of Government in England than in any other country. The war had upset the balance of power in Asia, but the press took no heed of that, and urged with conspicuous success that the Japanese should on no account be hindered in their seizure of the spoils. Other countries, keeping a cooler outlook on eventualities, were unable to regard the occupation of Liao-tung by Japanese forces with the equanimity with which it was viewed in England, though they made no objection to the enormous indemnities forced from China, which might indeed be philosophically regarded by them as a tax levied specially on British trade. Being threatened in her weakest frontier by this ambitious military Power, Russia had intimated before war began, in no ambiguous terms, that she could not tolerate such a neighbour, and on the conclusionof peace she took steps to give effect to that resolution. Russia had throughout the war been extremely nervous about the possible action of Great Britain, and would have gone considerable lengths to come to an understanding with her; but towards the end, when the pretensions of the Japanese began to assume extravagant dimensions, their moral effect on the Great Powers enabled her to dispense with English favour by drawing France and Germany to her support. The gravity of the Japanese demands was the factor that drew the three Powers together, and Li Hung-chang, when he went as envoy to Japan in March 1895, assented to the indemnity and the surrender of territory on the assurance given him that the more excessive the conditions of peace he might be forced to sign, the more certain were they to be revised by the intervention of the Powers. The three Powers proved strong enough to induce Japan to give up Liao-tung for an increased indemnity, and the future of the Far East thus was arranged in conferences from which Great Britain had excluded herself. There were several reasons for the abstention of the British Government from taking a share in this settlement. One was the complete failure of their Intelligence Department before, during, and after the war. But the fervour of the nation in deprecating interference with the Japanese was a sufficient, and no doubt a welcome, warrant for the inaction of the Government. An experienced observer of English public life remarked afterwards that he had never known a situation in which the press, metropolitan and provincial, had displayed such entire unanimity and lavished such unmixed praise on the Governmentfor its isolation. And yet it was a unanimity of nescience, of simple abdication, the surrender of a position in the Far East which had been built up for two generations on the permanent interests of the country, and which, sacrificed at the critical moment, is gone beyond recall. The "new diplomacy," uninstructed popular impulse, never had a freer field; for the Government which it dominated was scarcely more enlightened, and decidedly more apathetic, than the nation itself.
MINISTERS OF THE YAMÊN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.H.E. Shên Kuei-fên.H.E. Tung Hsün.H.E. Mao Chang-tsi.From a photo by J. Thomson, Grosvenor Street, W.
MINISTERS OF THE YAMÊN OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.H.E. Shên Kuei-fên.H.E. Tung Hsün.H.E. Mao Chang-tsi.From a photo by J. Thomson, Grosvenor Street, W.
An unsettlement—Interference of Russia, Germany, and France—China reduced to dependence—Disintegration proceeds—France forces China to violate her treaties with England—Russian approval—The loans pressed upon China—Russia vetoes English loan, substituting a French one, Russia standing security—Germany seizes Kiaochow—Russia seizes Port-Arthur—England's remonstrance unheeded—A diplomatic correspondence explained—British public aroused to importance of the Far Eastern question—Call upon Government to take protective action.
An unsettlement—Interference of Russia, Germany, and France—China reduced to dependence—Disintegration proceeds—France forces China to violate her treaties with England—Russian approval—The loans pressed upon China—Russia vetoes English loan, substituting a French one, Russia standing security—Germany seizes Kiaochow—Russia seizes Port-Arthur—England's remonstrance unheeded—A diplomatic correspondence explained—British public aroused to importance of the Far Eastern question—Call upon Government to take protective action.
It would perhaps be in stricter accordance with facts to describe what ensued on the Chinese collapse as a process of unsettlement than resettlement, since no man now living is likely to see the end of the dislocation effected by the transactions of 1895. The crude ingredients of national policy, stripped of the international decencies with which they were wont to be invested, were then thrown into the caldron; elementary forces, naked and undisguised, confronted each other; and the scramble which moderate men had hoped to see indefinitely postponed was entered into with the zest of a Cornish wrecking raid. The officious interference of quasi-friendly Powers to save the derelict empire from mutilation proved, according to unvarying experience,a remedy which was worse than the disease. Russia, Germany, and France proceeded to treat China as a No Man's Land; disintegration was the order of the day. The example was, of course, contagious. Other Powers, with no more substantial ground of claim than was afforded by the defencelessness of China, began whetting their knives to carve the moribund carcass.
A momentous transformation had been effected in a few months. China now occupied the paradoxical position of a protected State without protection; of a sovereign State shorn of the power of fulfilling her obligations. To this impossible situation the Government itself had been an efficient contributor. During the progress of the war China had, of her own motion, thrown herself on the mercy of the world. Before all the Powers, great and small, with whom she had intercourse, she humbled herself in the dust, imploring them collectively, separately, or anyhow, to save her from her relentless foe. She, the titular mistress of the world, grovelled thus at the feet of Powers to whom she would not, even then, in plain words, have conceded equality. And when assistance eventually came it was imposed on her by external force. She could make no conditions.
The revolution which the revised treaty of Shimonoseki effected in the international status of China was naturally first realised by those who had brought it about. China ceased to be a free agent; she became a vassal, and not to one Power only. And the intervening Powers lost no time in demonstrating the fact, France taking the lead. Within two months of the revision of the treaty of Shimonoseki the FrenchMinister in Peking compelled China to sign a treaty granting to France large territorial concessions on which she had long had her eye, with commercial privileges never before granted to any Power. But the stipulations of the French convention were in open conflict with those of an existing treaty with this country, inasmuch as they gave to France a portion of the Shan States, which had been expressly reserved as a neutral zone in the treaty between China and Great Britain. The British Minister, pointing this out before the French treaty was concluded, protested against its signature. The Ministers of the Yamên admitted the justice of his contention, nor can it be said the protest was unheeded. With the Yamên it was a question solely of the balance of power, and feeling that the French force was the heaviest in the scale, they yielded to that and signed the treaty with France in direct violation of that which they had previously signed with Great Britain. As if to leave no ambiguity as to the true significance of the change of status which had come over China, the Russian Minister on the day following made a formal visit to the Tsungli-Yamên, with more than the customary display, to congratulate the Chinese Ministers on what they had done, and to assure them of the approval of his Government.
This novel application of the law of force threw out of gear the whole system of Chinese national engagements, and was quite incompatible with normal diplomatic relations. Formerly the struggle had lain between China and all the Powers, her obligations to whom were observed in proportion to the amount ofcoercion applied by, or to be apprehended from, each. From this resulted a chronic demand for the fulfilment of agreements, and constant reclamations for non-fulfilment. But now the native reluctance to observe treaties was potentially reinforced by the action of foreign Powers in not only condoning, but explicitly insisting upon, China's violating her engagements.
It may be that this species offorce majeurewas not wholly unwelcome to the Chinese. It certainly widened the field for their favourite tactics of playing off one foreign Power against another. A better answer than heretofore was now available to all demands and remonstrances. "We should for our part be most happy to do as you desire, but—what would Russia say, what would France say?" Thus diplomacy in China at once degenerated into a "tug of war" contest, China herself being merely the rope which was pulled. She was virtually ruled out of the active management of her own affairs and became thecorpus vilefor rival aggressors.
Aggression sometimes assumed strange forms. One of the first which the treaty of peace with Japan developed was a remarkable competition in lending money to the Chinese. The indemnities to be paid to Japan were heavy, and it was obvious that China must borrow. But before she had time to take any step in that direction money was being thrust upon her. First in the ranks were English loan-mongers, who had had some experience in the business. Their negotiations were slow and halting; and when they had at last concluded a contract it was only to be told that Russia objected to the transaction, andrequired that China should borrow from French capitalists, who were willing to lend on the guarantee of Russia. The Chinese Government were absolutely passive, not willingly, but of necessity; they had not asked for the guarantee which Russia volunteered, and were quite willing to accept the loan of £16,000,000 sterling on the English terms. But Russia simply insisted on their taking the French money, under an ominous threat, while she herself stood security for the solvency of China, thereby assuming the position of first mortgagee on the revenues of that empire. That accomplished, Russia stipulated that China should contract no further loan for a period of six months.
The precedent set by Russia and France of ignoring the Government of China as an efficient factor in negotiations respecting her territory or her obligations was followed to the letter by Germany when in November 1897 she took possession of the most important naval harbour on the Chinese coast, with an adequate hinterland, carrying elastic rights extending over an immense area of country. Admiral von Diedrichs reduced the question of the acquisition to its very simplest expression. "Common-sense," he submitted to the Chinese commandant, "must tell you on which side the superior force lies, and therefore you would be wise to make way for me without resistance." With the prize in her hands, Germany next demanded a formal title to what she had seized, and instead of giving the German Minister his passports the Chinese Government granted the request.
In this unceremonious manner was the new status of China embodied in monumental facts. She was the common victim, having no power to bind or loosesave in accordance with the dictates of her masters. The Chinese Government seemed to have abdicated sovereign functions.
After France and Germany it was Russia's turn to give tangible evidence of the real ascendancy she had gained over the Chinese Imperial Government. Hers was the only true mastery. The others might wrest provinces and extort concessions from a prostrate Government, but Russia alone reached the cerebral centre and controlled—so far as outward effect went—the volition of the organism. Negotiations, partly revealed in 1895, showed conclusively the scope and direction of her Chinese policy. It was profound and practical, continuing on the lines that had proved so successful in the past. The basis of it was an ostensible friendship for China, out of which grew a protective alliance, and the peculiar kind of partnership which had constituted the intermediate stage in the previous great territorial acquisitions of Russia. The joint right of the two Powers—to the exclusion of all others—to navigate the Amur and the Songari, and the joint possession of the Usuri territory—"details to be hereafter settled"—was now to be applied to the coast and harbours of Liao-tung, of which Russia was to have the use, afterwards defined in a treaty as the "usufruct." The gentlest methods were to be used, and so far as mere phrases were concerned, a matter on which the Chinese always were punctilious, the utmost consideration for their feelings was to be shown. Russia had two immediate objects in view, both of cardinal importance to her. The first was to obtain a terminus for the Great Siberian Railway more southerly than Vladivostock, which could only be obtained inKorean or Chinese territory. The second—the necessary corollary of the first—was to bring the territory through which the railway should run within the Russian administration. The sanction of China to a branch of the Siberian Railway being carried through Manchuria to a terminus on the Liao-tung littoral was formally given in conferences between Li Hung-chang and the Czar on the occasion of the coronation at Moscow in 1896. The details were afterwards developed in a way of which it is probable the Chinese Government had little foresight; but it would have made no difference, for to Russia nothing could be denied.
Out of these comprehensive projects of Russia—projects which belonged to the very highest order of imperial statecraft—arose a strange unequal duel between Russian and British diplomacy, which has also left its mark on history. Her Majesty's Government and their agents abroad having been found wanting in the matter of information during the upheaval of the Far East, it appeared to be theirrôleto ignore and deny the facts upon which other Powers were acting. In particular the whole Russian scheme of utilising Chinese territory and controlling the Chinese Government was discredited with considerable vehemence. The consequence of this attitude of scepticism was that whatever Great Britain might resolve to do must be done in the dark. Assured by their agents in the Far East that the bay of Kiaochow was worthless, the British Government satisfied themselves that Germany had made a poor bargain in taking it. Dismissing as a phantasy the whole string of facts concerning Russia's plans, the British Governmentexposed themselves to collision with those plans, and received in consequence a series of diplomatic humiliations, entailing upon the country permanent disadvantages of a most substantial kind. Towards the end of 1898, soon after the German seizure of Kiaochow, a harbour which had also proved a convenient winter rendezvous for the Russian fleet, the announcement came from China that the latter had received permission from the Chinese Government to winter at Port Arthur on the opposite coast of Liao-tung. Thereupon a discussion was raised between London and St Petersburg concerning the prospective designs of Russia. This discussion was stamped from its origin with futility by previous communications with the Russian Government, the purport of which was inferred from a speech by Mr Balfour in February 1896. On that occasion he declared that the British Government would not only not oppose, but would hail with satisfaction, the acquisition by Russia of an ice-free port in the Pacific. As her Majesty's Government held Russia to the pledge she gave in 1886 to respect the integrity of the Korean coast, it followed that the ice-free harbour contemplated by Mr Balfour could only be in Chinese territory, which, as affecting the dominating power of Russia in the Far East, was greatly in advance of what the occupation of a Korean harbour would have been. Korea had been safe-guarded from encroachment because it was the stepping-stone to China, but the Russian lodgment on the inner waters of China itself deprived Korea of most of its strategical value. Hence Russia kept silence when Mr Curzon stated in Parliament that the pledge held good which preservedthe integrity of Korea, a pledge which had lost its significance. This acquiescence in Russia's taking an ice-free port on the Chinese coast was in direct contradiction to other no less authoritative statements of the British Government. As, for instance, the resolution passed by the House of Commons, and accepted by the Government, pledging them to maintain the integrity of China, followed by the statement by the Under Secretary of State that the Liao-tung coast with its harbours constituted an integral part of the Chinese dominions. It is obvious that this confusion arose either from lack of information or lack of interest in the subject, coupled in either case with absent-mindedness on the part of the British Government. But these inconsistencies of the members of the British Government made no difference to the steady prosecution of the Russian plans, which were now developed with great rapidity. These pretensions were signalised by two memorable incidents, following each other so closely as to be practically simultaneous, in January 1898. The first was a new loan to the Chinese under negotiation by British financiers, to assist which her Majesty's Government was strongly urged by the China merchants to give its guarantee to the lenders as Russia had done in the case of the previous loan. On being asked by the Foreign Office what securities it would be proper to demand from the Chinese Government as the equivalent of such British guarantee, the British Minister at Peking replied that one of the conditions should be the opening of Talien-wan as a treaty port by the Chinese Government. Whether he had considered in what way this concession was to benefit the position of Great Britain was not disclosed.The proposal was promptly vetoed by the Russian Government, whose ambassador in London urged strongly that "if we insisted on making Talien-wan an open port we should be encroaching on the Russian sphere of influence, and denying her in future that right to the use of Port Arthur to which the progress of events had given her a claim,"—adding, that without having any designs on the territory, "it was generally admitted that Russia might claim a commercialdébouchéupon the open sea, and that in order to enjoy that advantage fully she ought to be at liberty to make such arrangements with China as she could obtain with respect to the commercialrégimewhich was to prevail there."
The second incident was that two British war-vessels which were anchored in Port Arthur—where, of course, they had the same right to be as any other foreign man-of-war—"made a bad impression" on the Russian Government, and formed the subject of complaint to the British Secretary of State. While denying the right of Russia to comment on the movements of British ships in Chinese waters, Lord Salisbury nevertheless allowed the vessels in question to depart, a movement which was reported with much colour of truth in Peking and St Petersburg as having been made by the order of Russia.
Thus within one month the exposition of the Russian designs was expanded from the first assurance of Count Muravieff that the wintering of the ships was merely for the temporary convenience of the fleet, to the assertion of vague territorial rights over the coast and harbours of Liao-tung. And Lord Salisbury observed with plaintive naïveté in the month of March, thatwhereas his Government "had always looked with favour upon the idea of Russia obtaining an ice-free port on the Pacific, Russia had now given a most unfortunate extension to this policy." It appears that the eyes of the British Government were not opened to the gravity of the situation until Russia, alleging that an ice-free port on the Chinese coast (no longer the Pacific) was a vital necessity to her, thereupon took possession of Port Arthur and Talien-wan. The British Government at the eleventh hour opposed the proceeding, for the reason that "the influence of Russia over the Government of Peking will be so increased to the detriment of that of her Majesty's Government, if the Russians are to have a lease of Port Arthur and Talien-wan, that it seems desirable for us to make some counter-move." Thus the British Government were brought to see, when too late, what those interested in Far Eastern affairs had been endeavouring to tell them years before; and there seems to be no doubt that the final discovery of the truth was due to the efforts of one or two persistent writers in the press during January and February 1898, but chiefly to the action of a small independent section of the British House of Commons led by Mr Yerburgh. On such trifling accidents do great events sometimes hang, that it seems probable that had Mr Yerburgh's movement taken effect three months earlier British ships would not have been withdrawn from Port Arthur, neither would China have been ousted from the possession of her only two naval harbours north of the Yangtze—at least not just then. It would serve no good purpose to follow the various explanations given by Ministers of the British Crown of their diplomaticencounters with Russia. They will have little interest for the historian. But a clear account of these transactions given in a letter to the 'Times,' May 19, 1898, may very well serve as a guide to future inquirers into these matters:—
The Legend of Talien-wan.Before the recent diplomatic struggle in the Far East is allowed to pass away from the public mind, may I be permitted to say a few words on one of its aspects which seems to have received very little attention?The bad faith of the Russian Government has been strongly, and not unreasonably, condemned; but no attempt has been made to explain it, except on the popular hypothesis that a double dose of original sin is normal in the Muscovite. It does not seem to have occurred to any writer on the subject that the Russians themselves may have a grievance, that they may have acted under a sense of injury, or that, in their view, the good faith of the British Government is not above reproach. I believe they are mistaken; but it is none the less true that the chain of facts on which they rely will well bear the interpretation they place upon it.The great blot on the recently published "Correspondence respecting the affairs of China" (No. 1, 1898) is that it takes no account of its immediateVorgeschichte. It relates to a diplomatic struggle of which we last heard officially as far back as 1887, when the Blue-book on Port Hamilton was published. Since then many important things have happened, notably the Chino-Japanese war and the intervention of Russia, France, and Germany in the settlement of Shimonoseki. To ignore these events is really to delude the public; for the chapter of Far Eastern politics which begins with the German descent on Kiaochow is little short of meaningless if the story of Shimonoseki is passed over. Indeed the legend of Talien-wan itself belongs to a policy which may easily be traced back half a century. It is, however, not necessary for my purpose that I should go behind the Shimonoseki intervention. What was the object of that transaction? No one who has given any attention to Far Eastern affairs has ever been under the slightestillusion on this point. The great problem of Russian statesmanship since the foundation of the empire has been to reach the open sea, first in the Baltic, then in the Euxine and the Mediterranean, and, after the Crimean war, in the Pacific. Since Muravieff and Nevelskoy opened the Amur Russia has neglected no opportunity of pushing southward in order to get beyond the line of winter ice, and every embarrassment of China has been skilfully used by her to bring her nearer her goal. We in England have consistently resisted this policy, and in 1886 we thought to have finally defeated it when, by seizing Port Hamilton, we extracted a pledge from Russia that she would not occupy Korean territory "under any circumstances whatever." To all outward seeming Russian expansion in the Far East was thus stopped in the ice-bound harbour of Vladivostock. This, however, was not the view of Russia herself. She was still confident that an opportunity would be afforded her of realising her ambition, for there were other harbours on the Pacific besides those of Korea, and if the road to them was longer and more difficult, Russian patience was equal to the task of covering it. In these circumstances Japan, victorious in her war with China, claimed and obtained the cession of the Liao-tung peninsula, and thus threatened to shut the door for ever against Russian access to the Pacific. The intervention of the Powers which Russia thereupon organised was ostensibly directed to the protection of the integrity and independence of China, but no intelligent politician doubted at the time, or has doubted since, that its real aim was to keep the Pacific door open for Russia.Shortly after this event Lord Salisbury came into office. The problem which then most urgently demanded his attention was that of Armenia. Largely by its attitude in the Far East the Rosebery Cabinet had left our relations with Russia in a distinctly strained condition, and the one obvious remedy of the Armenian horrors—the coercion of the Sultan—was blocked by Russia. Lord Salisbury directed himself to the conciliation of Russia, wisely recognising that nothing could be done in the Near East without Russian goodwill and assistance. What were the means he employed? I cannot say what private negotiations may have taken place between the two Governments, but we seem to have a sufficiently significant illustration of the direction in which the Premier was disposed tomake concessions to Russia in a speech delivered by Mr Balfour at Bristol on February 3, 1896. In that speech a British Minister announced for the first time that this country would not oppose Russian expansion to the Pacific. "I, for my part, frankly state," he said, "that, so far from regarding with fear and jealousy a commercial outlet for Russia in the Pacific Ocean which would not be ice-bound half the year, I should welcome such a result as a distinct advance in this far-distant region." This statement made a profound impression all over the world, as well it might, seeing that it implied the abandonment of a policy which had been consistently and vigilantly adhered to by Great Britain from the time of Lord Clarendon to that of Lord Rosebery.A few days after Mr Balfour's Bristol speech—on February 20—it fell to Mr Curzon to explain in a negative way the scope of his leader's pronouncement. An impression had got abroad that the new policy implied the surrender of the pledge given by Russia in 1886 with regard to the occupation of Korean territory, and the Under Secretary was asked in the House of Commons for his views on the subject. Mr Curzon replied that "her Majesty's Government consider that the pledge given by the Russian Government is still binding." Was this a disavowal of the new Russophile policy. Obviously not: for later in the year, at the Guildhall banquet, Lord Salisbury made to Russia the friendliest overtures he has ever made in public speech. At the same time he especially accentuated the novelty of his attitude by asserting that "it is a superstition of an antiquated diplomacy that there is any necessary antagonism between Russia and Great Britain."The position, then, of the Government was apparently this: they had abandoned the traditional hostility of this country to Russian expansion towards the ice-free Pacific on condition that it did not trench on Korean territory. It followed, then, that they were not disposed to offer any hindrance to the acquisition by Russia of a port on Chinese territory, westward of the Korean frontier—that is, somewhere between the mouth of the Yalu and Port Arthur. This must be clear to anybody who cares to glance at a map. The upshot of the speeches of Mr Balfour and Lord Salisbury and of the statement of Mr Curzon was, in short, to invite Russia, whenever she might feel so disposed, to plant the Russian flag on the southern coast of Manchuria.This, at any rate, was the view taken in Russia, and, for my part, I can see no escape from it. It is not a little significant of the satisfaction caused in Russia by this interpretation of the policy of Great Britain that, on November 25, a fortnight after Lord Salisbury's speech, the Tsar at last consented in principle to the British proposals for coercing the Sultan of Turkey on the Armenian question.Now we come to the events of last November, when Germany suddenly swooped down on Kiaochow. This step is known to have been very distasteful to the Russian Government. It was the first appearance of a European Power in the northern waters of China, in a region which Russia had persuaded herself was reserved for her own domination. Long before the murder of the unfortunate German missionaries in Shantung it was well known in St Petersburg that Germany had her eyes on Kiaochow, and the Russian Minister at Peking had more than once warned Li Hung-chang and urged him to fortify the bay. The disappointment of Russia became intensified when it was observed that the step taken by Germany, was not resented in this country, and fears of an Anglo-German alliance in the Far East began to possess the Russian mind. Then suddenly there came the Talien-wan incident, and Russia found herself once more confronted by the danger which had threatened her in the treaty of Shimonoseki.The real significance of the Talien-wan incident has never yet been fully set forth. Had Talien-wan been made a treaty port, and thus given more or less of an international status, Russia would have been practically shut out for ever from the ice-free ocean. The only stretch of coast on which she could obtain this outlet was, as I have already shown, the southern coast of Manchuria from the Korean frontier on the Yalu to Port Arthur. Now, if we examine this coast-line carefully we shall find that there is only one spot capable of being transformed into a commercial port, and that is Talien-wan. The China Sea Directory (vol. iii.), published by the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty, gives us the fullest particulars on this subject. It traces the coast-line in microscopic detail and shows us that it has only five possible harbours. The first, westward from the Yalu, is Taku-shan, the approach to which is frozen during the winter months. The second is Pi-tse-wo,—here the water is too shallow even for large junks. The thirdis Yen-tao Bay, the anchorage of which is bad, and in places dangerous. The fourth is Talien-wan, and the fifth Port Arthur. Talien-wan has all the advantages which are absent from the other ports. It is ice-free, spacious, well sheltered, with excellent anchorage and considerable commercial possibilities. Is it surprising that Russia should have felt aggrieved when it was proposed to make Talien-wan a treaty port?As a matter of fact, I believe Russia regarded this proposal as an attempt to evade the assurance given by Mr Balfour in his Bristol speech. She looked upon it as the design of a powerful Anglo-German combination to exclude her for ever from the China seas. It was to her mind a conspiracy of the most dangerous kind, and she bent all her efforts to defeat it. When she had defeated it she lost no time in securing her position. She took Port Arthur as well as Talien-wan, for the simple reason that her interpretation of the situation convinced her that a commercial port overlooked by a great citadel in foreign hands would be a vantage to her foes rather than a prize to herself. Can she be altogether blamed for taking this view?The mistake the Russian Government made was in attaching a serious meaning to the casual blunders of our Government, and in imagining that these blunders marked a connected purpose, if not a consistent policy. They were not to know that the Russophile passage in Mr Balfour's Bristol speech was a mere oratorical tag; that our friendly attitude towards Germany at Kiaochow was only a sort of amiable tolerance of an act the scope and consequence of which we had not measured; and that our proposal to open Talien-wan was made at the suggestion of our Minister at Peking, who, of course, knew what he was about, while it was acquiesced in at home by Ministers who simply did not know what they were doing. That Sir Claude Macdonald designed the Talien-wan move as a check to Russia I have no doubt; that Lord Salisbury never dreamed of this aspect of it I am equally convinced.However that may be, one thing, I think, is clear. The sense of injury and the complaints of bad faith are not all on one side. In diplomacy, as in most of the affairs in this world, it is a wise rule not to believe your opponent to be as stupid as he looks. Russia at any rate paid us this compliment during the recent negotiations. The result, no doubt, is that she has overreached us. But whose fault is it?
The Legend of Talien-wan.
Before the recent diplomatic struggle in the Far East is allowed to pass away from the public mind, may I be permitted to say a few words on one of its aspects which seems to have received very little attention?
The bad faith of the Russian Government has been strongly, and not unreasonably, condemned; but no attempt has been made to explain it, except on the popular hypothesis that a double dose of original sin is normal in the Muscovite. It does not seem to have occurred to any writer on the subject that the Russians themselves may have a grievance, that they may have acted under a sense of injury, or that, in their view, the good faith of the British Government is not above reproach. I believe they are mistaken; but it is none the less true that the chain of facts on which they rely will well bear the interpretation they place upon it.
The great blot on the recently published "Correspondence respecting the affairs of China" (No. 1, 1898) is that it takes no account of its immediateVorgeschichte. It relates to a diplomatic struggle of which we last heard officially as far back as 1887, when the Blue-book on Port Hamilton was published. Since then many important things have happened, notably the Chino-Japanese war and the intervention of Russia, France, and Germany in the settlement of Shimonoseki. To ignore these events is really to delude the public; for the chapter of Far Eastern politics which begins with the German descent on Kiaochow is little short of meaningless if the story of Shimonoseki is passed over. Indeed the legend of Talien-wan itself belongs to a policy which may easily be traced back half a century. It is, however, not necessary for my purpose that I should go behind the Shimonoseki intervention. What was the object of that transaction? No one who has given any attention to Far Eastern affairs has ever been under the slightestillusion on this point. The great problem of Russian statesmanship since the foundation of the empire has been to reach the open sea, first in the Baltic, then in the Euxine and the Mediterranean, and, after the Crimean war, in the Pacific. Since Muravieff and Nevelskoy opened the Amur Russia has neglected no opportunity of pushing southward in order to get beyond the line of winter ice, and every embarrassment of China has been skilfully used by her to bring her nearer her goal. We in England have consistently resisted this policy, and in 1886 we thought to have finally defeated it when, by seizing Port Hamilton, we extracted a pledge from Russia that she would not occupy Korean territory "under any circumstances whatever." To all outward seeming Russian expansion in the Far East was thus stopped in the ice-bound harbour of Vladivostock. This, however, was not the view of Russia herself. She was still confident that an opportunity would be afforded her of realising her ambition, for there were other harbours on the Pacific besides those of Korea, and if the road to them was longer and more difficult, Russian patience was equal to the task of covering it. In these circumstances Japan, victorious in her war with China, claimed and obtained the cession of the Liao-tung peninsula, and thus threatened to shut the door for ever against Russian access to the Pacific. The intervention of the Powers which Russia thereupon organised was ostensibly directed to the protection of the integrity and independence of China, but no intelligent politician doubted at the time, or has doubted since, that its real aim was to keep the Pacific door open for Russia.
Shortly after this event Lord Salisbury came into office. The problem which then most urgently demanded his attention was that of Armenia. Largely by its attitude in the Far East the Rosebery Cabinet had left our relations with Russia in a distinctly strained condition, and the one obvious remedy of the Armenian horrors—the coercion of the Sultan—was blocked by Russia. Lord Salisbury directed himself to the conciliation of Russia, wisely recognising that nothing could be done in the Near East without Russian goodwill and assistance. What were the means he employed? I cannot say what private negotiations may have taken place between the two Governments, but we seem to have a sufficiently significant illustration of the direction in which the Premier was disposed tomake concessions to Russia in a speech delivered by Mr Balfour at Bristol on February 3, 1896. In that speech a British Minister announced for the first time that this country would not oppose Russian expansion to the Pacific. "I, for my part, frankly state," he said, "that, so far from regarding with fear and jealousy a commercial outlet for Russia in the Pacific Ocean which would not be ice-bound half the year, I should welcome such a result as a distinct advance in this far-distant region." This statement made a profound impression all over the world, as well it might, seeing that it implied the abandonment of a policy which had been consistently and vigilantly adhered to by Great Britain from the time of Lord Clarendon to that of Lord Rosebery.
A few days after Mr Balfour's Bristol speech—on February 20—it fell to Mr Curzon to explain in a negative way the scope of his leader's pronouncement. An impression had got abroad that the new policy implied the surrender of the pledge given by Russia in 1886 with regard to the occupation of Korean territory, and the Under Secretary was asked in the House of Commons for his views on the subject. Mr Curzon replied that "her Majesty's Government consider that the pledge given by the Russian Government is still binding." Was this a disavowal of the new Russophile policy. Obviously not: for later in the year, at the Guildhall banquet, Lord Salisbury made to Russia the friendliest overtures he has ever made in public speech. At the same time he especially accentuated the novelty of his attitude by asserting that "it is a superstition of an antiquated diplomacy that there is any necessary antagonism between Russia and Great Britain."
The position, then, of the Government was apparently this: they had abandoned the traditional hostility of this country to Russian expansion towards the ice-free Pacific on condition that it did not trench on Korean territory. It followed, then, that they were not disposed to offer any hindrance to the acquisition by Russia of a port on Chinese territory, westward of the Korean frontier—that is, somewhere between the mouth of the Yalu and Port Arthur. This must be clear to anybody who cares to glance at a map. The upshot of the speeches of Mr Balfour and Lord Salisbury and of the statement of Mr Curzon was, in short, to invite Russia, whenever she might feel so disposed, to plant the Russian flag on the southern coast of Manchuria.This, at any rate, was the view taken in Russia, and, for my part, I can see no escape from it. It is not a little significant of the satisfaction caused in Russia by this interpretation of the policy of Great Britain that, on November 25, a fortnight after Lord Salisbury's speech, the Tsar at last consented in principle to the British proposals for coercing the Sultan of Turkey on the Armenian question.
Now we come to the events of last November, when Germany suddenly swooped down on Kiaochow. This step is known to have been very distasteful to the Russian Government. It was the first appearance of a European Power in the northern waters of China, in a region which Russia had persuaded herself was reserved for her own domination. Long before the murder of the unfortunate German missionaries in Shantung it was well known in St Petersburg that Germany had her eyes on Kiaochow, and the Russian Minister at Peking had more than once warned Li Hung-chang and urged him to fortify the bay. The disappointment of Russia became intensified when it was observed that the step taken by Germany, was not resented in this country, and fears of an Anglo-German alliance in the Far East began to possess the Russian mind. Then suddenly there came the Talien-wan incident, and Russia found herself once more confronted by the danger which had threatened her in the treaty of Shimonoseki.
The real significance of the Talien-wan incident has never yet been fully set forth. Had Talien-wan been made a treaty port, and thus given more or less of an international status, Russia would have been practically shut out for ever from the ice-free ocean. The only stretch of coast on which she could obtain this outlet was, as I have already shown, the southern coast of Manchuria from the Korean frontier on the Yalu to Port Arthur. Now, if we examine this coast-line carefully we shall find that there is only one spot capable of being transformed into a commercial port, and that is Talien-wan. The China Sea Directory (vol. iii.), published by the Hydrographic Department of the Admiralty, gives us the fullest particulars on this subject. It traces the coast-line in microscopic detail and shows us that it has only five possible harbours. The first, westward from the Yalu, is Taku-shan, the approach to which is frozen during the winter months. The second is Pi-tse-wo,—here the water is too shallow even for large junks. The thirdis Yen-tao Bay, the anchorage of which is bad, and in places dangerous. The fourth is Talien-wan, and the fifth Port Arthur. Talien-wan has all the advantages which are absent from the other ports. It is ice-free, spacious, well sheltered, with excellent anchorage and considerable commercial possibilities. Is it surprising that Russia should have felt aggrieved when it was proposed to make Talien-wan a treaty port?
As a matter of fact, I believe Russia regarded this proposal as an attempt to evade the assurance given by Mr Balfour in his Bristol speech. She looked upon it as the design of a powerful Anglo-German combination to exclude her for ever from the China seas. It was to her mind a conspiracy of the most dangerous kind, and she bent all her efforts to defeat it. When she had defeated it she lost no time in securing her position. She took Port Arthur as well as Talien-wan, for the simple reason that her interpretation of the situation convinced her that a commercial port overlooked by a great citadel in foreign hands would be a vantage to her foes rather than a prize to herself. Can she be altogether blamed for taking this view?
The mistake the Russian Government made was in attaching a serious meaning to the casual blunders of our Government, and in imagining that these blunders marked a connected purpose, if not a consistent policy. They were not to know that the Russophile passage in Mr Balfour's Bristol speech was a mere oratorical tag; that our friendly attitude towards Germany at Kiaochow was only a sort of amiable tolerance of an act the scope and consequence of which we had not measured; and that our proposal to open Talien-wan was made at the suggestion of our Minister at Peking, who, of course, knew what he was about, while it was acquiesced in at home by Ministers who simply did not know what they were doing. That Sir Claude Macdonald designed the Talien-wan move as a check to Russia I have no doubt; that Lord Salisbury never dreamed of this aspect of it I am equally convinced.
However that may be, one thing, I think, is clear. The sense of injury and the complaints of bad faith are not all on one side. In diplomacy, as in most of the affairs in this world, it is a wise rule not to believe your opponent to be as stupid as he looks. Russia at any rate paid us this compliment during the recent negotiations. The result, no doubt, is that she has overreached us. But whose fault is it?
The Russian flag once hoisted over Port Arthur and Talien-wan (by what nominal authority makes no difference whatever to the fact) placed the new relation of China to the rest of the world beyond all discussion. China did not willingly surrender her territory: she looked in vain for help, but found none. She weighed in the balance the words and acts of one great Power against the words and acts of another, and had no choice but to place herself under authority of the strongest, finally and irrevocably. That fact must be taken as the master-key to her subsequent policy in all its phases.
These several events succeeding each other in close order awoke the British public from their optimistic dream, and forced them to reflect that there was after all something more in these Far Eastern readjustments than had occurred to them when cheering on gallant little Japan to the spoliation of China. The result obtained was certainly not that which was contemplated either by the nation or the Government when Great Britain settled down into her isolation. When the truth of the situation had revealed itself to the public there was naturally a loud call for something to be done to safeguard the commercial interests of the country, if not to recover lost prestige; but the Government were as far from having definite aims in China as they had ever been, and while goading them to action, the public was scarcely in a position to advise what that action should be. Neither had the Government, in spite of all that had taken place, fully realised to what extent China had added impotence to reluctance, for they continued to deal with China very much as if the events of 1895 to 1898 had never happened. They were reluctant to recognisethe fact that Russia, in possession of the Liao-tung or Kwan-tung peninsula and of the railway line connecting it with Siberia, held a noose round the neck of the Peking Government, which she could tighten or relax, conceal or parade, as circumstances required, and that until some other Power or Powers were prepared to speak with equal authority Russia must be paramount, not by virtue of any convention, but as the outcome of accomplished facts.
Two measures adopted by Great Britain to rectify the preponderance of Russia were the seizure, under a form of negotiation, of the harbour of Weihai-wei and the forcing of money upon the Chinese by way of loan. The value of these strokes of policy has not yet become apparent.