to detach it from any personal charge and bring it back to first principles, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman declared that "in supporting this amendment those who act with me on this side of the House are merely repeating to-night a similar line of action to that they took in 1899, and again last session." This statement from our leader caused a number of us to vote for the amendment who would not otherwise have done so. The Government majority was 142-a division on strict party lines.

The debate was an unpleasant and an unfortunate one. I need only point to a veiled hint that perhaps the Boer prisoners were sent to Ceylon in order to bring business to the company in which the Colonial Secretary was interested! In my own opinion, two things are evident. First, if this issue was serious enough to be raised in Parliament at all, it ought to have been raised officially from the Liberal front bench. Second, it ought to have been absolutely detached from any attack, however remote or repudiated, upon the personal honor of Mr. Chamberlain and his son. It is superfluous to say that no reasonable person believes for one moment that these two gentlemen did, or under any circumstances could, employ their official position for the purpose of making private profit. The notion is preposterous. Yet it is beyond question regrettable that, even in perfect integrity, the names of Ministers of the Crown should be found in such companies. And against this a protest was proper and desirable. Many Ministers have felt this and acted upon it. It is well known, for instance, that Lord Lansdowne disposed of a large holding at a great loss in a certain company before he became Minister of War. Several of Lord Rosebery's Ministers did the same thing. That there is a certain slackness of feeling upon this point in Conservative circles is shown by the appointment of Lord Hardwicke as Under-Secretary of State for India, he being a partner in a firm of stock-brokers and a member of the Stock Exchange. He has undertaken to take no active part in the business of his firm and never to enter the Stock Exchange while he exercises the functions of his office, but he does not leave his firm and he does not resign from the Stock Ex

change. Nobody dreams of suspecting Lord Hardwicke's personal integrity, but I think almost everybody-except Lord Salisbury, who said he saw no harm whatever in the dual position-regrets that under the circumstances he should either have been offered or should accept office. Once more, Lord Rosebery exactly expressed the best public feeling on the subject, in these words:

I venture to say that, though these instances are innocent and for the moment free from objection with regard to the individuals to whom I have referred, yet they are of the very greatest danger to the political life of our of? It is not the things in which we are country. What is it that we are most proud equaled by other nations-intrepidity, valor, and ability-but that in which we have boasted by long tradition we are superior to other Countries. It is the unattackable purity of our public men. I do not doubt that they are as pure now as ever they were; but the wife of Cæsar must be above suspicion. There must be no possibility that, at a time when the has been undertaken in the interest of capienemies of the Government urge that the war talists--a charge, in my opinion, as ridiculous as it is groundless-it is not at a time when people make charges of this kind that there in the gates to rest on any foundation, howshould be any opportunity for these slanderers ever slight, and to say, What can you expect from a Government which is connected in any way with companies or firms on the Stock Exchange ?"

66

It is because of the considerations so impressively stated here that I hold—with the deference proper to a new member— that a tactical and ethical mistake was made on the Liberal side when this subject was permitted to take on the aspect of a personal attack, and the vital national issue thus allowed to be obscured in the pyrotechnic success of a private defense.

I have left myself little space in which to speak of the war in Parliament, but this is of the less importance, as we shall probably hear the same thing all over again in a few weeks. The Liberal amendment calling for some declaration of conciliatory policy was properly withdrawn, for it drew from Mr. Chamberlain the most conciliatory speech that any Minister has yet made, promising a great development of local self-government to the Boers at the earliest possible moment. The speech of Mr. Brodrick, the new Secretary of State for War, was by far the gloomiest, as regards the outlook, that

has yet been made, and its doleful tone fairly startled the House. This is probably to be explained by his determination that he would not follow the long series of ever-exploded "the-war-is-over " speeches. Possibly, too, it was to prepare the country for the call for fresh efforts on a large scale. There was some very sound and serious criticism of policy, both civil and military, but there was also, from a few Liberal members, language concerning our generals, our troops, and our officials which must have caused a good many of their fellow-Liberals to feel hot with shame. No reply was made to

T

these from the Liberal side, but I think such silence cannot be expected in the future, for men will feel that they are Englishmen before they are Liberals. When we meet again, however, on February 14, everything else political will be submerged for the moment by the tide of Nationalist members who are coming over-according to their own plain intimations-more determined and less scrupulous than ever before, to make the business of the House of Commons impossible except on their terms. The cable will then be kept busy, unless all signs fail, telling you of "scene" after "scene."

HE experience of a large number of foreigners, representing many countries, in an Empire the size of Europe, extended for a period of more than forty years, ought to afford valuable insights into the practical aspects of those relations between the men of the West and the Chinese which have now been strained to the breaking point.

Yet there are inherent difficulties in the study of the phenomena which are appreciated more as they are considered longer. China, as just remarked, is an Empire stretching through many degrees of latitude and longitude. Yet the very names of most of its provinces are unknown in other lands, and the whole vast territory is generally considered to be too uninteresting, and, in the phrase of Mr. Thomas Taylor Meadows (one of the most intelligent but now quite forgotten authorities upon China) too "ten-thousand-miles-offy" to be seriously considered. Now and then comes the report of an outbreak somewhere along the coast or in the interior, but, unless the circumstances have some special horror connected with them (as has too often been the case), they are soon forgotten, having never been in the least understood. To the permanent residents

1Copyright, 1901, the Outlook Company, New York. Previous articles in this series by the author of Village Life in China" and "Chinese Characteristics" will be

found in the issues of The Outlook for October 27, December 8, 15, and 29 last.

of China there is another difficulty in the general resemblance of the external phenomena of these disturbances, and the fact that they are seldom far apart in time, so that even the most stalwart memory finds it hard to keep them in mind. A careful historical and critical examination of each of these riots, with an inquiry into the causes, real and alleged, the modus operandi, the amount of damage inflicted, and especially the treatment of the case by the foreign government concerned, would be of great value, particularly as the records of many of them can scarcely be said to be available even to the foreigner in China who has access to libraries, not having been gathered into any permanent form, and existing only in ephemeral publications. It is the object of the present paper to consider a few of the typical riots against foreigners which have occurred within the past forty years, as an aid to a comprehension of the causes of such persistent and malignant attacks. Owing to the fact that missionaries have within the period in question been dispersed all over China, most of the outbreaks have directly assailed them, their houses and chapels; but, as will appear more fully hereafter, violence has been by no means confined to them, so that it is strictly correct to speak of the riots as anti-foreign.

By far the largest of the Protestant

organizations in China is the Inland Mission, which was organized about the year 1865 by the Rev. J. Hudson Taylor, who has remained at the head of it ever since. In the year 1868 Mr. Taylor, with a companion, began to open a work in Yangchou, fifteen miles to the north of Chinkiang, one of the treaty ports on the Yang zu. Yangchou was a city of three hundred and sixty thousand inhabitants, situated on the Grand Canal. After making efforts to rent some thirty different houses, one was at last found. But the report of hostility at Chinkiang stirred up the literati to organized effort to prevent the occupation of this place. The populace were inflamed, first by small handbills of a defamatory nature, and, these proving insufficient, by larger ones, until the whole city was on the qui vive. At this juncture the literary examinations occurred. Notice of the intention to attack them was given to the missionaries. Everything that could be done was tried to neutralize these posters and threats, by the admission of the people to see the premises, and by other conciliatory measures, but in vain. On the 22d of August the mob attacked the place in earnest, and when it became evident that the repeated messengers sent to the officials would bring no aid, Mr. Taylor and his companion risked their lives in a personal visit to the yamen, where they were kept waiting for three-quarters of an hour, while hearing the shouts of the mob at a distance, destroying the property and not improbably taking the lives of the ladies left in the house. When at last the magistrate appeared, it was to ask insulting questions about the imaginary Chinese children alleged to have been kidnapped, the official promising, however, to attend to the matter, while they were obliged to wait the result, as it was said the presence of the missionaries on the street would render a dispersion of the mob impossible. When at length, after two hours of torturing suspense, they were allowed to return, the place was in complete ruin, and the remaining missionaries, who had barely escaped with their lives, were in hiding. Although the rioters had made a clean sweep of many of the doors, walls, and partitions, yet the resolute but almost exhausted band of missionaries returned to their premises with the cogni

zance of the officials, only to have the riot renewed the next day and many of their dismal experiences duplicated. There was the same well-nigh hopeless appeal to the prefect, and the same interminable delay in seeing that official, who had not yet risen and did not wish to be disturbed. At last he sent the district magistrate to the scene of violence, dispersed the mob, and the lives of the foreigners were once more with difficulty saved. Mr. Taylor was told to write a mild letter to the prefect, but he must not call the proceedings a "riot," but only a "disturbance," and must ask to have those arrested punished, and proclamations issued. Although it was quite certain that the Taotai and the prefect had themselves arranged to have the riot take place, there was no help for it, and the letter was written. Meantime a verbal message had been sent to the Consulate in Chinkiang, and later a note. The Consul came at once to the rescue, with others accompanying, and the Consul at Shanghai, Mr. Medhurst, took up the matter with great vigor. With a small steamer and a guard of seventy marines from H. M. S. Rinaldo, he went to Yangchou, stationed guards at the doors of the terrified prefect's yamen, and demanded an interview. The latter endeavored to minimize the gravity of the riot, but was met point by point by the Consul until he was completely silenced. He was then given an ultimatum requiring that the leaders of the riot, whose names were given, should be punished, that the premises should be repaired, that a proclamation declaring the rights of British missionaries should be issued, that compensation for losses should be made, and that any natives imprisoned on account of the missionaries be set free. To some of these demands the prefect acceded, but as to others he said that he must consult with the Governor-General, Tseng-Kuo-Fan, at Nanking. With characteristic energy, Mr. Medhurst decided to take the prefect to the Governor-General himself, and thus cut short the endless evasions, the prefect stipulating that he should go in his own boat and not as a prisoner. On the way the prefect asked to be allowed to spend the night on the opposite side of the river from the Consul, giving his written promise to be there in the morning. He then

made his escape in ne night, leaving his boat, probably in order to see the GovernorGeneral before Mr. Medhurst arrived, to give his own version of the case. Mr. Medhurst reached Nanking in due time, and had an interview with the GovernorGeneral, who was very gracious, and there seemed fair promise of his acting equitably. But at this juncture occurred one of those contratemps which are so disastrous in Oriental diplomacy. The Captain of the Rinaldo fell ill and returned to Shanghai, leaving Mr. Medhurst, in the eyes of the Chinese, with no moral support. TsengTa-Jen at once changed his tone, and definitely refused to give the redress demanded, or to punish the literati, the prefect, or the local magistrate, although the documents showed that they had been repeatedly warned of the impending troubles ten days previous to the outrage.

All that could be got was the promise of the restoration of the property, so that, after the lapse of two or three months' time, the missionaries might return, a proclamation being issued forbidding interference with foreigners. The claim for losses was cut down one-half, and the premises were occupied by Mr. Taylor three months after the riot. The skill and ability of Mr. Medhurst were praised by all who were cognizant of the intricacy and difficulty of the case, yet it has always been understood that his energy was regarded with disfavor by the Foreign Office, this fact being well known to all foreigners in China, and probably also to the Chinese Government. It is worth noting that the Taotai who was so largely responsible for the whole trouble frankly admitted that he had not put the truth of the matter before the Governor-General, saying that it would be worth his office to do so.

In this typical and test case it is evident to every one, after the lapse of more than a generation, as it was at the time to most persons of discernment, that the British Government should either have never taken up the case at all, or should have carried it through as a precedent of importance for the whole Yangtzu valley and for all China. In this and in every similar instance before and since, the Ariadne clue to right results is the simple but far-reaching motto of Lord Elgin: "Make no demands which are not just; never recede from a demand once made."

To the fluctuating feeble-forcible policy of foreign Governments much of the open hostility to the treaty rights of foreigners is to be directly attributed. The Tientsin massacre of June 21, 1870, has been already mentioned and need be referred to only by way of illustration, although it has remained down to the present time the most wholesale example of Chinese ferocity against foreigners. There was a preceding animosity against the French for using as a consulate one of the popular temples, and the wild reports of the killing of innocent children at the Catholic orphanage seemed to the people unquestionably true, especially as an epidemic prevailed and a considerable number of the children had died. The French consul was extremely injudicious and was arrogant in his tone, and the officials were, as usual, inert until it was too late. Twenty foreigners were killed, and probably as many more Chinese. The same Tseng-Kuo-Fan whom we have just met in Nanking was now Governor-General in Chili, but his position here was a most difficult one. The people as a whole entirely sympathized with the rioters, feeling a blind fury against supposed foreign outrages. For a long time the sale of "massacre fans" was carried on, the people evidently enjoying the pictures of the ruin of property and the slaughter of foreigners. The pressure of the FrancoGerman war immediately following prevented the settlement of the case on such a basis as to make its recurrence improb able. Sixteen Chinese were beheaded and many others were banished, but the effect of the sentence was largely neutralized by the uncertainty whether the right persons had been executed, and by the popular impression that each of their families received a handsome grant from the Chinese Government and officials. For a detailed notice of this and some of the later risings against foreigners in China, those who are interested in the subject would do well to consult the closing chapter of Mr. F. W. Williams's History of China" (a continuation of the work of his father, Dr. S. W. Williams), in whose judicious opinion of the Tientsin outbreak the well-informed reader will be inclined to concur: "In short, the whole history of the riot-its causes, growth, culmination, results, and repression-combines as