from China came to our educational institutions to pursue their studies when her commerce sought our shores and her people came to build our railroads, and when China looked upon this country as her best friend. If all this be reversed and the most populous nation on earth becomes the great antagonist of this Republic, the careful student of history will recall the words of Scripture, they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind,' and for cause of such antagonism need look no further than the treatment accorded during the last twenty years by this country to the people of that nation." 1

Meanwhile, Mr. E. H. Parker rather sarcastically remarks:

"The United States have always been somewhat prone to pose as the good and disinterested friend of China, who does not sell opium or exercise any undue political influence. These claims to the exceptional status of an honest broker have been a little shaken by the sharp treatment of Chinese in the United States, Honolulu and Manila."?

1 Dissenting opinion in the case of the United States, Petitioner vs. Sing Tuck or King Do and thirty-one others, April 25, 1904.

"China," p. 105.

I

XIV

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS-TREATIES

N view of some of the facts presented in the two preced

ing chapters, it is not surprising that the efforts of foreign

powers to establish diplomatic relations with the Chinese Government were rather tempestuous. A full account of the negotiations would require a separate volume. For two generations, nation after nation sought to protect its growing interests in China and to secure recognition from the Chinese Government, only to be met by opposition that was sometimes courteous and sometimes sullen, but always inflexible until it was broken down by force. Each envoy on presenting his letters was politely told in substance that the Chinese official concerned was extremely busy, that to his deep regret it would not be possible to grant an immediate conference, but that as soon as possible he would have pleasure in selecting a "felicitous day" on which they could hold a "pleasant interview";' and when the envoys, worn out by the never-ending procrastination, finally gave up in disgust and announced their intention of returning home, the typical Chinese official blandly replied, as the notorious Yeh did to United States Minister Marshall in January, 1854,-"I avail myself of the occasion to present my compliments, and trust that, of late, your blessings have been increasingly tranquil.

Scores of European and American diplomatic agents had substantially the same experience. United States Minister Reed, in 1858, truly said that the replies of the Chinese to the

1 Foster, "American Diplomacy in the Orient," p. 205.

2 Foster, p. 213.

memorials and letters of the foreign envoys were characterized by "the same unmeaning profession, the same dexterous sophistry; and, what is more material, the same passive resistance; the same stolid refusal to yield any point of sub

Nor can it be denied that the Chinese had some ground for holding foreign nations at arms' length as long as they could, for with a few exceptions, prominent among whom were some American ministers, notably Mr. Burlingame, the foreign envoys were far from being tactful and conciliatory in their methods of approach to a proud and ancient people. Mr. Foster reminds us that in the negotiations which terminated in the treaty of 1858,

“The British were pushing demands not insisted upon by the other Powers, and they could only be obtained by coercive measures. The reports in the Blue Books and the London newspapers show that Mr. Lay, who personally conducted the negotiations for Lord Elgin, when he found the Chinese commissioners obdurate, was accustomed to raise his voice, charge them with having 'violated their pledged word,' and threaten them with Lord Elgin's displeasure and the march of the British troops to Peking. And when this failed to bring them to terms, a strong detachment of the British army was marched through Tien-tsin to strike terror into its officials and inhabitants. Lord Elgin in his diary records the climax of these demonstrations: I have not written for some days, but they have been busy ones. We went on fighting and bullying, and getting the poor commissioners to concede one point after another, till Friday the 25th.' The next day the treaty was signed, and he closes the record as follows: Though I have been forced to act almost brutally, I am China's friend in all this.' There can be no doubt that notwithstanding the seeming paradox, Lord Elgin was thoroughly sincere in this declaration, and that his entire conduct was influenced by a high sense of duty and by what he regarded as the best interests of China."?

But can we wonder that the Chinese were irritated and humiliated by the method adopted?

1 Foster, p. 236.

2" American Diplomacy in the Orient," pp. 241, 242.

That treaty of 1858 gave some notable advantages to foreigners, for it conceded the rights of foreign nations to send diplomatic representatives to Peking, the rights of foreigners to travel, trade, buy, sell and reside in an increasing number of places, and on the persistent initiative of the French envoy, powerfully supported by the famous Dr. S. Wells Williams, Christianity was especially recognized, and the protection, not only of missionaries but all Chinese converts to Christianity, was specifically guaranteed. Of course, by the famous "most favoured nation clause" any concession obtained by one country, was immediately claimed by all other countries.

It was this treaty which included the famous Toleration Clause regarding Christian missions as follows:

"The principles of the Christian religion, as professed by the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, are recognized as teaching men to do good, and to do to others as they would have others do to them. Hereafter those who quietly profess and teach these doctrines shall not be harassed or persecuted on account of their faith. Any person, whether citizen of the United States or Chinese convert, who, according to these tenets, shall peaceably teach and practice the principles of Christianity shall in no case be interfered with or molested."

The charge has been frequently made that this clause was smuggled into the treaty without the knowledge of the Chinese, so that the claims to recognition and protection which were subsequently based upon it rest upon an unfair foundation. It is indeed possible, as Dr. S. Wells Williams, the author, frankly admits that if the Chinese had at all comprehended what was involved in these four toleration articles, they would never have signed one of them." But perhaps the same thing might be said of most treaties that have been signed in Asia. The fact remains, however, that the articles referred to were not placed in them without the knowledge of the Chinese. Dr. Williams explicitly states that he and the Rev. Dr. W. A. P.

1" The Life and Letters of Samuel Wells Williams, LL. D.," p. 271.

Martin, called upon the Chinese Commissioners and that

"some of the articles of our draft were passed without objection, those relating to toleration (of Christianity in China) and the payment of claims were copied off to show the Commissioner, those permitting and regulating visits to Peking were rejected, and others were amended, the colloquy being conducted with considerable animation and constant good humour on his part."1

In a letter written many years afterwards and dated New Haven, September 12, 1878, Dr. Williams states that the first draft of the Toleration Clauses was rejected by the Chinese Commissioners, as he believes at the instigation of the French Legation, because the clause recognized Protestant missions. Dr. Williams then states that as soon as he could, he drew up another form of the same article and laid it before the Chinese Imperial Commissioners. He writes:

"It was quite the same article as before, but they accepted it without any further discussion or alteration; however, the word whoever' in my English version was altered by Mr. Reed to any person, whether citizen of the United States, or Chinese convert, who '-because he wished every part of the treaty to refer to United States citizens, and cared not very much whether it had a toleration article or not. I did care, and was thankful to God that it was inserted. It is the only treaty in existence which contains the royal law."

In Dr. Williams' Journal for June 18, 1858, the following record appears:

"I went to sleep last night with the impression that after such a reply from the Minister it would be vain to urge a new draft, but after a restless sleep I awoke to the idea of trying once more, this time saying nothing about foreign missionaries. The article was sketched as soon as I could write it and sent off by a messenger before breakfast; it was a last chance, and every hope went with it for success. At half-past nine an answer came. Permission for Christians meeting for worship and the distribution of books was erased, while the words open ports were inserted

1" The Life and Letters of Samuel Wells Williams, LL. D.," p. 261.