THE NEW WAR WITH CHINA.
IT is not impossible that our interference in China may end in furthering the progress of civilization ; but it has begun in a way to place us in a false position before the Chinese, in the eye of reason, and according to the letter of public law. The Chinese are wrong, but we have managed to be more wrong. Sir John Bowring began by resting our claim to admission within the precincts of Canton upon the maltreatment of the lorcha Arrow, which he professed to protect as a vessel with a British flag. The Arrow was native-built, its crew was Chinese, its owner was a Chinese ; it had not kept up its register, had no right to its licence, is not proved to have borne the British flag, and had no right to bear the flag if it did so. It is said that the lorcha had a British master—servant of the Chinese owner; and that the outside was foreip-painted : but that does not establish its
British character either in fact or spirit. Let us try the fact by our own most familiar tests of evidence and justice. Let us suppose that the owner or crew of the lorcha had brought an action of assault or trespass against the Chinese soldiers in one of our courts of law, resting their plea on the ground that the vessel was British : in such an action, probably the jury would have returned a special verdict, saying—" that there was no evidence that the Arrow had a British flag flying ; that if the flag were flying, the Arrow had no right to bear it, the licence having expired; and that it was not a British vessel within the meaning of the act." The crew were Chinese, and they were maltreated by the Chinese in authority—ff they were maltreated at all; so that it was a quarrel between Chinese, in which we had no proper interest. The whole of the proceedings based upon the Arrow, therefore, were vitiated, and only derogate from the equity or justice of our pressure upon Canton.
In the course of the correspondence, Sir John Bowring shifted his ground ; resting his demand for direct intercourse with Yeh upon the claim pressed by Mr. Bonham and upon the treaty of Nankin. A writer in the Daily News—" An Outside Barbarian," whose identity it is not difficult to guess, and who gives chapter and verse for his statements—shows that the treaty of Nankin does not secure the particular right claimed by Mr. Bonham, by Sir John Davis, and by Sir John Bowring. The treaty of Nankin, cited by the supplementary treaty, stipulates that "British subjects, with their families and establishments, shall be allowed to reside, for the purpose of carrying on their mercantile pursuits, without molestation or restraint, at the cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Fuehaufu, Ningpo, and Shanghai." On this the Outside Barbarian gives an interesting explanation— ":But ' at ' does not mean 'in,' and the expression cities and towns' is exclusively our own. The Americans and French, who came after us, and after we had been residing for sonic time at Canton under our treaty, use the term ports,' which is the equivalent of the Chinese kiang kan of the English and American treaties ; while in the French one, the last in order, the expression is kau shi-fau tifang—that is, seaport market-places. 'The idea,' says a high authority on such questions, which a native would derive from reading those four treaties, is, that foreigners have permission to reside at the five ports, in the places where trade is carried on ; the term kiang kat', or river's mouth, referring to the location on shore where traders collect from their ships to barter and exchange their goods. Such places are not necessarily walled in, nor are they ever called ching—that is, citadels, or walled cities ; and resort to the former has no reference to—certainly does not include ingress into—the letter.'"
The Outside Barbarian shows that the negotiation between Keying and Sir Henry Pottinger, in 1843, has been considerably misconstrued. Keying evidently desired to grant the free admission which Sir Henry Pottinger asked ; but the turbulence of the people, and the reluctance of the local gentry, effectually prevented it. Sir John Davis attempted to carry the same object with a high hand. An attack by thieves upon three British subjects, in March 1845, afforded him an opportunity for claiming the removal of "an invidious and mischievous bar to amicable relations with the Chinese." The assault of Colonel Chesney's pleasure-party at Fuhshan, in 1847, was another opportunity with Sir John for the famous April attack; upon the strength of which, while Keying was virtually under constraint, he extorted
an agreement eolourably assenting to the demand : but the assent was only colourable, adopted to get out of an immediate difficulty ; and in the spring of 1849 Sir George Bonham promised Seakwang-tsin that the subject should not be forced on. This appears to dispose of the new treaty-right. The intention, however, is to force a closer intercourse upon the Chinese whether they will or not. The London merchants are spiriting our Government, and pointing to new prizes which our dogs of war may pursue. The Americans are following us if they have not been before us. Their own journals report how they have seized the pretext afforded by the non-discovery of certain murderers at Shanghai, to refuse payment of the Chinese customs-duties ; whereupon the English also refuse,— claiming, we suppose, to stand on an equality with the Americans as "the most favoured nation." The demand for a resident Ambassador at Pekin has been advanced almost simultaneously in New York and London. That none of this is law, we can satisfy ourselves by supposing the case our own —by supposing that the Americans insisted on entering the fortified part of Portsmouth, refused to pay customs-duties unless we could discover the murderers of some sailors at a crimp's, and forcing a Mr. Dallas upon us whatever Clarendon and Victoria might say or think. Of course we should repel such trespasses ; but the Chinese it is calculated, are not strong enough. They are a stunted, timid, yet terbulent race, awed rather than governed by the alien dynasty and army of an inferior race. Sharp practitioners under public law might say that if the Government cannot govern, we may coerce the " fierce " people of Quangtung in self-defence ; that if the Celestial Empire cannot understand treaty-making, it is outside the pale of "the European system " ; and that if it cannot enforce our laws, it is de facto outlaw, so that we may do as we please. We may carry civilizing commerce into China vi et armis, and introduce the blessings of trade in spite of Pekin or Quangtung, on the principle of Mussulman proselytism. Under all the talk about treaties, that is practically the course which has been pursued. But although such a course may be possible physically and strategically, its policy may be disputed. If we force a way into the interior of China, it may be at the expense of breaking up the present system ; and so we might substitute for bad government that which is worse—no government, anarchy. That is a condition as little favourable to the growth of tea as it is to any kind of industry. We could not undertake the management of the millions that we despise ; for although we may conquer an inferior race, we are not necessarily able to govern it. It is possible, it is most probable, that at no very remote date the present system of China will have passed away ; but the transition must be gradual, if we are to continue either our imports of tea and silk or our own exports. The policy of direct, peremptory, and unqualified coercion, is as questionable as the treaty-right or the British character of the Arrow.
EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BUILDING TRADES.
ANOTHER house has fallen this week, from sheer inability to stand up. It is in the district of Spitalfields, where many houses
are in a very dangerous condition. Nor is Spitalfields alone in this respect ; the fall of houses has been sufficiently frequent to occasion great alarm for those who live in the neighbourhood of such accidents. On the outskirts of the metropolis speculators have overbuilt themselves ; they have been running up buildings intending to be attractive outside, but in many cases without providing sufficiently either for safety or for comfort. Even where there have been real improvements there is some hinderance. Within the week, we see a report that in Victoria Street "a reaction has taken place to a certain extent, but yet building operations are in a very languid state." Not that the population of London is decreasing ; quite the reverse—it is well known that there is a constant increase, not only by births but by a continued immigration. Thus there should be constant employment for the building trades ; and yet it was stated at the meeting of unemployed operatives in Smithfield the other day, that there are at present in the metropolis 25,000 persons connected with the building trades who are out of work. The speakers at the Smithfield meeting appear to have two expedients in view for the relief of persons thus circumstanced,—immediate application at the workhouse ; and ultimately employment on the waste lands, especially "in draining and tilling the same, to the end that their present impending ruin may be prevented, and corn produced in sufficient abundance to meet the wants of all."
The speakers at the meeting make an appeal to Government in a purely social sense. The appeal reminds us, perhaps, of what public men have too much forgotten, that the functions of government are not solely political ; yet, at present, in these building matters we are almost entirely without rule or guidance. The Commissions which preside over Metropolitan Improvements have wanted either the power or the purpose to introduce anything like order. One consequence is, that we see the customary homes, not only of the humbler classes, tumbling down for want of repairs or of reconstruction, at the same time that the metropolis is inconveniently extending itself ; building is outdone to such a degree that the speculation is not remunerative, while
multitudes of building-labourers are out of work., appears possible that, if a little government were introduced nto this labour of building and improvement, all those evils, which are in their nature nearly incompatible with each other, might be remedied. London is already large enough, and it would be an advantage to all who are engaged in business if the improvements were so carried on as not to extend it further, but to bring it closer together, and so to economize the space. To that end, we require the improvement of the streets in the central districts, and the reconstruction of those houses which are defective. We want a style of building suited to the industrial and business classes, involving less outlay of money upon ostentatious ornament, such as would yield a profit at moderate rents. In a place like London, moderate rents and profit on building can only be obtained by a considerable economy on the Found-rents.-The returns which are obtained from very inferior property, and from very poor tenants, are sufficient to show that a profit might be secured if the builder were to carry on his operations with a view to actual demand, and not with a view to speculation based upon a purely imaginative demand at some future day—if, in short, better homes were constructed in the business parts of the metropolis, instead of inferior gewgaws at a distance on the outskirts. To secure these conditions, only needs some degree of unity in the design ; and that again does but require a Minister to preside over the whole, with sufficient powers, not to coerce or to prevent, but solely to regulate the natural movements of the building trade. In other words, the events of the week again point to the expediency of constituting a complete and sufficient Ministry of Puldio Works.
There is a mode in which the building trade of the metropolis might be reduced to order. It has hitherto been conducted principally by fits and starts, in alternate paroxysms of speculation and intervals of stagnation. One effect is, to call into existence a whole army of labourers, who become paupers, able-bodied, discontented, and turaultuary, in the periods of stagnation. If any kind of continuity and regularity were imparted to the trade, the employment of those classes would be proportionately steady, and their numbers would not be suddenly increased at one time to increase the pauperism of the intervals. In improvements for a public object, private investments might very well be assisted
by public contributions. In the formation of now streets, for example, or the thorough reconstruction of old streets, the public might very justly contribute towards the public part of the improvement. This contribution would at once give the right of a voice in the direction of the improvements, and would conciliate the private speculator to cooperate. When the money-market is flush, savings are abundantly thrown into the building trade ; as soon as the money-market becomes "tight," half-finished houses are at a stand-still, and the building trades are thrown out of employment. If anything like a steadiness of employment were furnished by the public, it would induce a continuance of the works ; and if it were desirable to complete the design of particular neighbourhoods without intermission, there could be no species of investment more suited for public advances than that of metropolitan improvements. Advances can be safely made upon landed estates, and repaid within twenty years in the form of a sinking-fund, and surely there is sufficient profit to be got out of metropolitan lands for them to serve as a security in the same way. The Metropolitan Board of Works will, next session ask for an advance to carry on one particular kind of metropolitan improvement ; but here is another kind, which, under effectual superintendence, would greatly expedite the gradual but continuous improvement of the metropolis, and would secure steady employment for those munerous classes which arc now clamouring for aid.
Previous page
