and that the long period of decay and disunion would terminate in complete disruption and disaster. Within a quite recent time the character of the people reasserted itself under trying circumstances, and the evil day for them has again been postponed, if not finally put off. But before that reassertion of natural strength takes place a period of internal trouble and external weakness has to be gone through and described. With the death of Keen Lung the vigour of China reached a term, and just as the progress had been consistent and rapid during the space of 150 years, so now will its downward course be not less marked or swift, until, in the very hour of apparent dissolution, the Empire will find safety in the valour and probity of an English officer, and in the ability and resolution of the Empress-Regents and their two great soldier-statesmen, Li Hung Chang. and Tso Tsung Tang.

183

CHAPTER XV.

THE DECLINE OF THE MANCHUS.

ALTHOUGH it is usual and historically accurate to date the decline of Manchu power from the accession of Kiaking, it must not be supposed that it crumbled rapidly away, or that either Chinese statesmen or their European critics were aware that a great change had taken place, and that the power of the Government had been seriously diminished. On the contrary, the great achievements of Keen Lung left a profound impression after his death, assuring tranquillity against internal rebels, and deterring external enemies from attacking his State. Even to the eyes of Europeans China appeared a mighty and formidable empire nearly twenty years after the death of Keen Lung. Mr. Henry Ellis, one of the British Commissioners in 1816, and a man well acquainted with European courts and countries, said, "However absurd the pretensions of the Emperor of China may be to universal supremacy, it is impossible to travel through his dominions without feeling that he has the finest country within an Imperial ring-fence in the world." And if this was the opinion of a competent observer, there is no doubt that the general view of the exalted character of the Chinese autocrat and the extent of his power was still more pronounced. The merchants and factors of the East India Company, which retained the monopoly of the Chinese trade down to the year 1834, spread about their view of the magnificence of the Chinese Court and of the resources of the country, and only harsh experience could show how far this appearance of strength was delusive, and how far Manchu authority rested on an insecure foundation.

The favourable opinion which his father had held of him does not seem to have been shared by all the ministers of Kiaking. The most prominent of them all, Hokwan, who held to Keen Lung the relation that Wolsey held to Henry the Eighth, soon fell under the displeasure of the new Emperor, and was called upon to account for his charge of the finances. The favour and the age of Keen Lung had left Hokwan absolutely without control, and the minister turned his opportunities to such account that he amassed a private fortune of eighty million taels, or more than twenty-five millions of our money. He was indicted for peculation shortly after the death of the great Emperor, and without any friends he succumbed to the attack of his many enemies incited to attack him by the greed of Kiaking. But the amount of his peculations amply justified his punishment, and Kiaking in signing his death warrant could not be accused of harshness or injustice. The execution of Hokwan restored some of his ill-gotten wealth to the State, and served as a warning to other officials, but as none could hope to enjoy his opportunities, it did not act as a serious deterrent

upon the mass of the Chinese Civil Service. If arraigned, they might have justified their conduct by the example of their sovereign, who, instead of devoting the millions of Hokwan to the necessities of the State, employed them on his own pleasure, and in a lavish palace expenditure.

Several independent circumstances served to direct attention to the question of the foreign relations of China in the first years of the new reign. The increased import of opium entailing the increased export of silver became for the first time a matter of apprehension in the official world; and in the year 1800, the Hoppo, or Farmer of the Customs, at Canton, the only port where foreign trade was nominally tolerated, issued an edict denouncing the use of opium as a "growing evil," blaming the foreigners for importing it, and employing all sorts of threats against those indulging in or facilitating the practice. As the Hoppo could have stopped the import of opium if he had been so minded at this period, there is no doubt, and, indeed, the fact was notorious, that he did not share the sentiments expressed in the edict which bore his name. The suppression of the opium trade would have deprived his office of the pecuniary advantages which alone rendered it attractive, and enabled him to pay the large sum required for the appointment. The edict was drawn up by the Board of Censors at Pekin and published by Imperial command; but its enactments never possessed any force, and the Hoppo and his satellites, as well as the foreign merchants, treated it as a dead letter. In another matter the Chinese acted with greater energy and determination, and as it throws considerable light on the views prevailing at the time both in China and about China, and as it also forms what may be called the first scene of the drama for the effectual opening of Canton to foreigners, which was not closed for another half-century, it calls for detailed description.

The Portuguese were the tenants, as has previously been stated, or Macao, for which they paid an annual rent to the Chinese; but the nature of their tenure was not understood in Europe, where Macao was considered a Portuguese possession, During the progress of the great European struggle, the French, as part of one of their latest schemes for regaining their position in the East, conceived the idea of taking possession of Macao; but while they were contemplating the enterprise, an English squadron had accomplished it, and during the year 1802 Macao was garrisoned by an English force. The Treaty of Amiens provided for its restoration to Portugal, and the incident closed, chiefly because the period of occupation was brief, without the Chinese being drawn into the matter, or without the true nature of the Portuguese hold on Macao being explained. The exigences of war unfortunately compelled the re-occupation of Macao six years later, when the indignation of the Chinese authorities at the violation of their territory fully revealed itself. Peremptory orders were sent to the Canton authorities from Pekin to expel the foreigners at all costs. The Government of India was responsible for what was a distinct blunder in our political relations with China. In 1808, when alarm at Napoleon's schemes was at its height, it sent Admiral Drury and a considerable naval force to occupy Macao. The Chinese at once protested, withheld supplies, refused to hold any intercourse with that commander, and threatened the English merchants at Lintin with the complete suspension of the trade. In his letter of rebuke the chief mandarin at Canton declared that, as long as there remained a single soldier at Macao," he would not allow any trade to be carried on, and threatened to

"block up the entrance to Macao, cut off your provisions, and send an ariny to surround you, when repentance would be too late." The English merchants were in favour of compliance with the Chinese demands, but Admiral Drury held a very exalted opinion of his own power and a corresponding contempt for the Chinese. He declared that, as "there was nothing in his instructions to prevent his going to war with the Emperor of China," he would bring the Canton officials to reason by force. He accordingly assembled all his available forces, and proceeded up the river at the head of a strong squadron of boats with the avowed intention of forcing his way up to the provincial capital. On their side the Chinese made every preparation to defend the passage, and they blocked the navigation of the river with a double line of junks, while the Bogue forts were manned by all the troops of the province. When Admiral Drury came in sight of these defences, which must have appeared formidable to him, he hesitated, and instead of delivering his attack, he sent a letter requesting an interview with the mandarin, again threatening to force his way up to Canton. But the Chinese had by this time taken the measure of the English commander, and they did not even condescend to send him a reply; when Admiral Drury, submitting to their insult, hastily beat a retreat. several subsequent occasions he renewed his threats, and even sailed up the Bogue, but always retreated without firing a shot. It is not surprising that the Chinese were inflated with pride and confidence by the pusillanimous conduct of the English officer, or that they should erect a pagoda at Canton in honour of the defeat of the English fleet. After these inglorious incidents Admiral Drury evacuated Macao and sailed for India, leaving the English merchants to extricate themselves as well as they could from the embarrassing situation in which his hasty and blundering action had placed them. If the officials at Canton had not been as anxious for their own selfish ends that the trade should go on as the foreign merchants themselves, there is no doubt that the views of the ultra school at Pekin who wished all intercourse with foreigners interdicted, and who caused Père Amiot, notwithstanding his signal services under Keen Lung, to be expelled from the country, would have prevailed. But the Hoppo and his associates were the real friends of the foreigner, and opened the back door to foreign commerce at the very moment that they were signing edicts denouncing it as a national evil and misfortune.

On

If Admiral Drury was weak, it is gratifying to find that, in a matter affecting the national honour and the first principles of justice, other English officers were resolute and consistent. The Chinese authorities on the Canton river, who were good enough to allow the foreigners to dispose of their useful articles in the profit of which they shared, advanced on behalf of their sovereign the judicial authority over the persons of foreigners, which is admitted without dispute among nations on an equal footing in laws and civilisation. For offences committed within Chinese territory, or more explicitly on Chinese subjects, they claimed to possess the same power of punishing an European as a Chinese, and for a time they not merely claimed but exercised that power. One tragic incident in 1784 had brought into prominence the full extent of the Chinese pretension, and the gross injustice it entailed when carried out, as Chinese judges would execute it without regard for circumstances or qualifications. When firing a salute the gun of a sailor on board an English merchantman happened to be loaded with ball, and to hit and kill a Chinese sailor. Although the

affair was quite accidental, the Chinese authorities demanded the surrender of the culprit, and after long discussion the culprit was surrendered under the threat of the suspension of the trade, and in the belief that whatever punishment was inflicted, it would stop short of death. The Chinese did not condescend to any form of trial. They had obtained an European victim, and on the retaliatory principle of a life for a life they ordered him at once to be strangled. The Chinese obtained a momentary triumph, but they had effectually over-reached themselves, for after such an inhuman act it was impossible to again give way to their demands. Many subsequent cases of manslaughter occurred on the crowded river and in brawls on shore, but in no instance were Englishmen handed over to the cruel mercy of a Chinese judge. For whatever offences they had committed they were tried and punished in accordance with the practice of their own country and with due allowance for the provocation received. Long before the signature of any treaty the English asserted and maintained to the full extent of their power the principle of ex-territoriality.

The Macartney mission had attracted what may be called the official attention of the British Government to the Chinese question, and the East India Company, anxious to acquire fresh privileges to render that trade more valuable, exercised all its influence to sustain that attention. On its representations a costly present was sent to Sung Tajin, one of the ablest and most enlightened of all the Chinese officials who had shown cordiality to Lord Macartney, but the step was ill-advised and had unfortunate consequences. The present, on reaching Pekin, was returned to Canton with a haughty message that a minister of the Emperor dare not even see a present from a foreign ruler. The publicity of the act rather than the offer of a present must be deemed the true cause of this unqualified rejection, but the return of the present was not, unfortunately, the worst part of the matter. The Emperor Kiaking sent a letter couched in lofty language to George the Third, declaring that he had taken such British subjects as were in China under his protection, and that there was "no occasion for the exertions of your Majesty's Government." The advice of the Minister Sung, who was suspected of sympathy with the foreigners, was much discredited, and from a position of power and influence he gradually sank into one of obscurity and impotence. This was especially unfortuate at a moment when several foreign powers were endeavouring to obtain a footing at Pekin. The Russian Emperor, wishing no doubt to emulate the English, sent, in 1805, an imposing embassy under Count Goloyken to the Chinese capital. The presents were rich and numerous, for the express purpose of impressing the Chinese ruler with the superior wealth and power of Russia over other European states, and great hopes were entertained that Count Goloyken would establish a secure diplomatic base at Pekin. The embassy reached Kalgan on the Great Wall in safety, but there it was detained until reference had been made to the capital. The instructions came back that the Russian envoy would only be received in audience provided he would perform the kotow, or prostration ceremony, and that if he would not promise to do this he was not to be allowed through the Wall. Count Goloyken firmly refused to give this promise, and among other arguments, he cited the exemption accorded to Lord Macartney. The Chinese remained firm in their purpose, Count Goloyken was informed that his visit had been prolonged too far, and the most brilliant of all Russian embassies to China had to retrace its steps without accom