THE "OPEN DOOR" IN CHINA.
pro THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.".1 SIR,—May I ask your correspondents Mr. Slingsby and "Middle East" (Spectator, May 16th) what remedy they propose, assuming thdt their allegations are all correct? I have no doubt, for my part, that Russia will claim preferential rights in Manchuria, as Germany has claimed them in the province of Shantung. Do your corre- spondents propose that we should declare war on Russia, Germany, and France, or any of them, for the sake of the "open door" ? Of course they do not. A war with Russia, which has a land frontier of more than four thousand miles with China, would be the most formidable of all. Putting war out of the question, what is the alternative ? The alternative now in vogue is a policy of irritating and impotent nagging and vituperation in the Press and in Parliament. That policy most certainly will not secure the "open door" : it will only stiffen Russia's back, and provoke her to do us all the harm she can, since she sees us giving Germany and France carte blanche to close the doors in their "spheres of influence," while we concentrate our hostility on her. The present policy is as stupid as it is mischievous and fruitless. It is bound to fail, and leave a legacy of resentment behind it. Surely, Sir, the common-sense policy is the one which you propose, namely, a working understanding with Russia all round on the Do ut des principle. France has adopted that policy, to her great advantage. We have much to offer to Russia which I believe she would accept on reciprocal terms. Is it not worth a trial? The present policy is doomed to failure. It will not stop the policy of Russia, though it may occasionally delay it, and thus leave a sore behind which will be kept in remembrance against us. Your editorial note to Mr. Slingsby's letter is quite sound. In spite of Russian tariffs, our trade would gain greatly by the annexation of Manchuria by Russia. It is of comparatively small value to us now as a nation. Its development by Russia would solicit British capital. Our trade with Russia just now is much more valuable to us than our trade with the whole of China. "Middle East" is in error in saying that "the Treaty of Berlin made Batoum a 'free port.'" The Czar volunteered to make Batoum a free port, and the Congress of Berlin took note of the Czar's offer. But it is no part of the Treaty. And, as a matter of fact, British commerce has gained largely by the annexation of Batoum by Russia, as "Middle East" will see if he compares the statistics of Batoum under Turkish and Russian rule respectively. The fact is, no nation can close its door on the trade of other nations, and least of all in the case of a Free-trade nation. On the eve of the General Election of 1880 Mr. Chamberlain made a speech in Birming- ham in defence of Free-trade, and he clinched his argument with a telling illustration. Owing to our Free-trade policy, he said, he was able to undersell the screw manufacturers of America in their own markets, in consequence of their being handicapped by the American Protective policy. He undersold them so successfully, he said, that they com- bined to offer him £5,000 a year on condition that he sent no more screws to America. It would be well to read that speech now in combination with Mr. Chamberlain's speech in Birmingham on Friday week.—I am, Sir, &c.,
SCRUTATOR.
Previous page
