THE FRENCH PROTECTORATE OF CHRISTIANS.
Alliance with Church the corner-stone of French
conquest--Persistence of French ambitions in the Far
East--Protectorate of native Christians--Its abuse by the
propaganda--Forcible erection of cathedrals in Peking--Imperial
family aggrieved thereby--Negotiations for removal of church
from palace grounds--Mr Dunn's mission to Rome--Vatican to send
a nuncio--French Government vetos--French minister vetos transfer
of cathedral--Unless transaction placed in his hands.
The claim of France to protect Christians against the native authorities
in the Far East constitutes the basis and the origin of her present
political position in those countries. The propagation of the faith was,
indeed, a recognised element in the adventures of other countries besides
France; but she has, since the eclipse of Portugal and Spain, enjoyed
the distinction of a working alliance with the Church in furthering the
foreign domination of both. "Church and State, linked in alliance close
and potential, played faithfully into each other's hands," says Parkman
('Jesuits in North America'). In the reign of Louis XIV. the kingdom
of Siam was the object of their joint attention. A missionary bishop
persuaded the most Christian king that to establish the Church in Siam
and convert king and country to the Catholic faith would open an effectual
door for the extension of French commerce. A century later another bishop
persuaded another Louis to interfere in the affairs of Annam, and only
the events of 1789 cut short an expedition that was being prepared of
politico-ecclesiastical propagandism. Napoleon III. took up the cause,
and actually effected the conquest of Cochin China; and Gambetta was
so enthusiastic on the subject that, while persecuting the Catholics in
France, he was ready to expend the forces of the Republic in protecting
them in distant countries.
There is here, therefore, irrespective of persons or forms of government,
an unbroken tradition, which furnishes a key to the successive operations
of France in the Far East. Thus when she resolved to join England in
hostilities against China in 1857 a pretext was ready to hand in the
murder of a Catholic priest in the interior of the country, his presence
there being a defiance of the laws of the empire. There has been flux
and reflux in French policy, but no change in its direction; and though
prudence has from time to time set limits to its full expression,
the claim to a special representation of Chinese Christians has been
consistently pursued as a cardinal object of the French military, naval,
and diplomatic forces in the Far East.
The treaties of 1858 for the first time authorised travelling into the
interior, and placed French subjects, whether missionary or not, who
availed themselves of the permission, under the protection of their own
country. But ever since the convention of Peking in 1860 it has been
sought by indirect and unobtrusive means to assume the protectorate over
native Christians as well. The interpolated clause in the Chinese, which
was no part of the authentic French version of the convention, lent a
certain colour to the pretension by seeming to recognise communities
of Chinese Christians as legal units and fit subjects of international
agreement between China and France. Nevertheless, "French interference
between the Chinese authorities and the subjects of the empire of China
has never had any treaty warrant or justification by the law of nations,"
wrote Sir Rutherford Alcock in the 'Nineteenth Century,' November 1886;
and he added, "China has the remedy in her own hands, to a certain extent,
by refusing to admit the pretension." The Chinese Government had long
been alive to the danger, as its elaborate appeal to the reason of the
Powers in 1871 amply testified, but its eyes were opened still wider by
the lesson of the Tongking war. A disposition was thereafter evinced to
withstand the claim of the French, and the action of Germany afforded
sufficient support to the Chinese position, had the Government only
had the courage and perspicacity to lean upon it. For in the Catholic
propaganda were missionaries of German origin, who were not permitted to
divest themselves of their nationality, but were made to apply for their
passports into the interior not to the French, but the German, Legation in
Peking. Had Italy and Spain been equally independent, the question of the
French, or any other protectorate, could scarcely have been entertained
without introducing the element of separate foreign nationalism into
the constitution of the Christian communities in China, which would not,
perhaps, have been agreeable to the views of the Catholic propagandists,
for they naturally aspired to maintain their independence as a compact
ecclesiastical organisation.
The dread of the French protectorate was much accentuated by the enforced
restitution of ancient buildings, the most conspicuous examples of which
occurred in the city of Peking itself, and even within the area of the
imperial palace. The sites of three ancient churches being claimed by the
French Minister, the emperor's Government was compelled to violate its
sense of justice by evicting the existing owners. The original building of
one of the three was found practically intact, though hidden by the houses
built round and against its walls. These of course had to be cleared away,
regardless of the rights of their occupants. The interior fittings and
decorations of the church had disappeared, but, strange to say, much of
the wood carving and other ornaments were gradually recovered from the
old-curiosity shops, where the parts not destroyed had, by the instinct
of the Wardour Street craft, been preserved, begrimed with the dust of a
hundred years and hopelessly unsaleable. By patiently collecting these
disjointed fragments and piecing them together like a Chinese puzzle,
the Fathers were able gradually to restore the church to something like
its original state, so that it became itself an interesting relic of the
golden age of the Jesuits in Peking.
The other two churches had been demolished, and the sites converted to
secular uses, requiring some ingenuity to identify. When these sites
were, under the new dispensation, cleared of superincumbent buildings,
churches were erected as much exceeding the original as the glory of
the Jewish temple, rebuilt after the Captivity, excelled that of the
former house. The restrictions imposed by the Government on the style of
the buildings, the last vestige of power which they dared assert, bore
lightly on the astute constructors of the new churches. In deference
to a common Chinese objection, perhaps partly superstitious, to lofty
structures overlooking them, a limit was set to the height of the new
buildings. But remonstrances after completion were easily disposed of by
the pious Fathers inviting the objectors to go and measure the towers! The
Chinese seem to have the same constitutional dislike of a demonstration
that they have to a straight line or a right angle, and a challenge
like this never failed to put them to silence. As to their neglect to
exercise their right of supervision during construction, the shortest
way to characterise it is merely to say it was Chinese. The same kind of
negligence also allowed roofs of cathedrals, not in the capital alone, but
in distant provinces, to be covered with yellow tiles, a colour reserved
exclusively for imperial use. It is true the process was disguised, for
the benefit of those who chose to be blind, by the tiles being whitewashed
before being sent aloft, leaving to the slow action of the weather the
gradual revelation of the imperial colour, which might then, indeed, be
represented as the act of Heaven. Nothing is too transparent to deceive
those who are willing to be deceived.
[Illustration: PEI-T'ANG CATHEDRAL IN PEKING, PURCHASED BY CHINESE
GOVERNMENT.]
The cathedral around which the greatest interest centred, however, was the
one which was erected within the palace grounds. The site had been granted
by the great Emperor Kanghsi, the most imperial of the Manchu line, to the
learned fathers who cured his fever by administering Jesuits' bark, then
a new discovery, and whom he reckoned on attaching to his house by the
favours bestowed on them. The new building was presumably erected on or
near the site of the old, against the most urgent protests of the Court.
Every inducement was offered to the French--larger and better sites,
perhaps other compensations as well--if they would forego their demand
for the resumption of the ground; but the French Government being set
upon marking its ascendancy by a permanent sign, compelled the erection
of the Pei-t'ang Cathedral on the spot indicated. The Lazarists, who had
succeeded to the Jesuits in North China, had a kindly bishop at their
head, who conceded much in the structure of the new building to soothe
the feelings of the imperial family. Nevertheless, stunted as they were,
from the point of view of architectural symmetry, the double towers of the
cathedral were visible from the palace, and the two belfries commanded
a view over a large part of the precincts. The building was therefore
an eyesore to the inmates for twenty years, on the common ground on
which it would have been offensive even to a provincial population, but
still more as a staring monument of the deepest humiliation the dynasty
had endured.[27] The empress-dowager bore the grievance, but not with
resignation, for soon after the affairs of the empire assumed a settled
aspect she urged her Ministers to find a way to get rid of the obnoxious
building.
Monseigneur Delaplace had, in his former diocese of Chêkiang, rendered
good service to the Government in opposing the rebels, for which he was
granted high Chinese rank. Being dissatisfied with the action of France
after the Tientsin massacre of 1870, he extricated his mission from the
control of the French Legation in Peking, and from that date till his
death in 1882 conducted its affairs in direct communication with the
Tsungli-Yamên. Fully recognising how hateful his cathedral was to the
Chinese, he co-operated with Prince Kung and Wênsiang in their efforts
to remove it, and in 1874 he actually concluded an agreement with them
to that effect. But the contract was vetoed by the French Government. The
sore was thus reopened and continued to fester until 1881, when there was
so much excitement in the capital that the Church and mission were thought
to be in great danger. During the Tongking troubles the question of the
cathedral was allowed to rest, but no sooner was peace assured than the
Court again became restless, and with renewed urgency sought a remedy for
its grievance.
The negotiations, which proved successful, were entered upon in an
irregular manner, such as has characterised so many of the Chinese
official acts. An Englishman in Peking, who had had business dealings with
the Government, was asked one day by the confidential factotum of Prince
Ch'un whether he could render assistance in the matter of the Pei-t'ang.
The case was explained at length, and the foreigner, not being then aware
of the negotiations of 1874, suggested, as the most obvious course, trying
to make an arrangement with the Lazarist mission. The Manchu shook his
head, to signify the futility of that proceeding. The enterprise thus
seemed desperate, unless the Imperial Government should exercise its
sovereign right of expropriation,--much too drastic a measure for any
Chinese Government to attempt.
One hope only seemed to remain, a direct appeal to the Vatican. This led
to a long conversation on the Papacy, and the Manchu official,[28] being a
pious and even a learned Buddhist, became intensely interested in hearing
much that was new to him respecting the position and prerogatives of the
European Dalai Lama. Nor did the "great Western Saint," whose vicegerent
the Pope claims to be, fail to evoke the deep reverence of both the Manchu
and the Chinese who were present, so that one might be almost justified
in appropriating words uttered on a different occasion,--they were "not
very far from the kingdom" ruled by "the Western Saint."
But the interesting question was, How was the Vatican to be approached? By
a qualified secret agent intrusted with the full confidence of the Chinese
Court. The mission would be by no means easy, for should its object become
known, it would be thwarted in advance from mere jealousy, if from no
other motive, by Lazarist and perhaps other Catholic missions, so that
access to the Supreme Pontiff would be blocked at the outset. The mission
would also be certain to arouse the strenuous hostility of the French
Government. After discussing the problem from all sides for three hours,
the Manchu cut it short by the abrupt question, "Will you go?" "No," said
the foreigner; "such an undertaking requires quite other qualities than
any I possess. But," he added, after considering the matter, "I think I
know the man who might carry it through." "Where is he? in Peking? Bring
him here," were rapped out like musketry-fire, showing how urgent was
the subject. The agent recommended to him was Mr J. G. Dunn, a man of
genius and of varied accomplishments, a Catholic, and having an extensive
personal acquaintance with the propaganda. He was at once invited to
Peking, when another long conference ensued, and Mr Dunn was requested to
draw up a memorandum on the whole scheme for the information of Prince
Ch'un. After waiting some time for a response Mr Dunn left the capital,
decidedly disappointed, for he was eager for a service so congenial to
his character and feelings. Indeed had the mission been created for the
man, or the man for the mission, the harmony between means and ends could
hardly have been closer.
Several months elapsed before the question emerged again from official
obscurity, and the manner of it is worth relating if only for the
side-light it throws on Chinese methods. Li Hung-chang paid a visit to the
capital in 1885, and soon after his return to Tientsin he requested his
secretaries to find out where Mr Dunn was and to invite him by telegraph
to come to see the viceroy. Not knowing why he was sent for, any more
than Gordon did when summoned from India five years before, Mr Dunn came,
and Li at once entered on the Pei-t'ang question, showing him his own
memorandum on the subject. The affair having been placed by Prince Ch'un
in the hands of Li Hung-chang to be carried through, Mr Dunn was promptly
commissioned, and in concert with the viceroy's secretary, the very
capable officer who now represents China at Washington, the emissary's
instructions and credentials were drawn up. There were two separate
instructions, and no little confusion was caused thereby.
On leaving China for Rome, Mr Dunn stipulated that a competent
intermediary should be appointed to interpret his correspondence to Li
Hung-chang, a duty which was intrusted to the commissioner of customs in
Tientsin. The utility of this provision was soon made manifest, for when
telegrams began to arrive from Rome, their purport was unintelligible,
as they seemed irrelevant to the expropriation of the cathedral, which
was Mr Dunn's special mission. Irritated by this apparent aberration,
the viceroy's idea was to recall the emissary. But when it was suggested
that the copies of his credentials should be first carefully examined
the position became clearer. One part of his instructions was then found
to be directed towards the question of the Christian protectorate, and
Mr Dunn was, in fact, diplomatising with the Pope with a view to his
appointing a nuncio or apostolic delegate to China to represent all the
Catholic missions. The Chinese had not fully mastered this idea, and even
Li Hung-chang, who has a wonderful memory, had forgotten the existence
of the second section of his instructions, which no doubt Mr Dunn had
drawn up himself. The Tsungli-Yamên, languid and bemused, hesitated to
express any opinion, and assumed their habitual passive attitude. One
person alone really grasped the importance of having the Church in China
represented by the delegate of a Power "which has no armies or fleets
wherewith to threaten or attack." The empress-dowager, when the nomination
of Mgr. Agliardi was announced, and his coming depended on formal imperial
invitation, sent the urgent message to the Yamên, "Get that man here; lose
no time."
Mr Dunn's negotiations with the Vatican of course soon leaked out; notices
appeared in the press; Mr Punch had his little joke that though there
was evidently a good deal _doing_, the question was, Who was _Dunn_? The
French Government took the matter up energetically through their Minister
in Rome, and their diplomatic efforts having failed, they presented
an ultimatum to the Pope which compelled him to cancel the appointment
of his nuncio. France threatening to terminate the concordat, withdraw
the subvention to the Church in France, and sequestrate its ministers,
the Holy Father had no option but to submit. With tears in his eyes he
deplored his impotence to respond to the invitation of China under such
a truculent menace to "his children in France."
While these things were going on in Rome the transference of the Pei-t'ang
Cathedral, which had been settled in principle through Mr Dunn, was then
taken up by the Lazarist Mission, and the popular Père Favier was deputed
by the Bishop of Peking to proceed to Rome and to Paris to obtain from
the Vatican and the General of the Lazarist Order the specific authority
to negotiate the transfer. Having brought back the necessary powers,
a convention was shortly concluded between Bishop Tagliabue and Li
Hung-chang. The Church made an excellent bargain, as it generally does:
a new site of about thrice the area was granted close to the old on the
opposite side of the broad roadway, and a bountiful compensation in money
was made for the trouble and cost of removal. But after the agreement was
signed the French Government interposed its veto so far as to insist on
being the intermediary through whose hands the transaction should pass.
France also, it was said, had previously essayed to _marchander_ with
China for her consent, but withdrew when it became clear that further
obstruction might entail untoward consequences. To mark its satisfaction
at the final solution of this question, the Chinese Government eulogised
all those who had helped to bring it about, and bestowed high rank on
Bishop Tagliabue and the Abbé Favier (now bishop).
This transaction supplied a crucial test of French policy and pretensions
in China, the first concrete expression of both that had been obtained
since the forcible restitution of Church property immediately after the
capture of Peking. The coercion, indeed, was applied on this occasion
to the Roman Pontiff and the Catholic Church rather than to the Chinese
Government; but the latter were not so dull as not to see to what
ulterior objects the French scheme might be extended, given convenient
circumstances. They were, in fact, really alarmed, and the question was
discussed with some warmth in the Chinese as well as in the European
press. "The end is not yet," wrote Sir Rutherford Alcock; "China may
be less open to intimidation than heretofore, and assert her undoubted
right to refuse the recognition of an assumed protectorate over Roman
missions, irrespective of the nationality of their members." The French
press espoused the cause of the protectorate warmly, treating it as a most
valuable national asset. The Chinese press took up the question in reply.
Their view of the position was comprehensively summed up in a native
newspaper in October 1886 in the following terms:--
It has been said by them of old time that when a man is found
acting injuriously to his own family but benevolently to strangers
his behaviour is unnatural, and there is something hidden under
the cloak of outward kindness.
We have from time to time printed translations from various
foreign newspapers on the subject of the relations between the
Chinese Government and the Pope. Some days ago we reproduced an
article on the same subject from the 'Temps,' a French newspaper
of the highest authority. These articles all indicate that the
French Government is greatly troubled at the prospect of losing
what is called the right to protect Christians in China. This is
a question which has not hitherto been much considered by Chinese
statesmen. Those of them who have been in Europe, or who have
studied political affairs there, know something of the importance
of the issues which are covered up in that apparently harmless
word "protection"; but it is hardly to be expected that the
Ministers and statesmen who have scarcely travelled beyond the
walls of Peking can realise the full significance of the phrase.
Nothing is better calculated to quicken the apprehension of the
Government on this point than the extraordinary excitement of the
French Government, which insists on protecting the Christians
in China whether they desire this protection or not. For now
that the French have so plainly shown their secret designs, it
would be impossible for China to acquiesce, by word or deed, in
the pretensions which France sets up. It is rather suspicious
that the French Government, the greatest enemy of Christianity,
which is constantly oppressing the priests and confiscating their
property in France, should be so intensely desirous of protecting
Christians in China, where this protection is not required. A
leading French statesman, Gambetta, who died a few years ago,
left as a legacy to his followers the doctrine that the Church
should be suppressed in France but supported in all foreign
countries. Gambetta was a man who had no reverence for Heaven, and
no religion, and seems to have regarded Christianity as a disease
which he wished his own country to be rid of, but was not sorry
to see it spreading elsewhere. It is necessary to keep these ideas
in mind in order to understand the action of the French Government
to-day.
It would be out of place here to discuss what Christianity
is. Like Buddhism, it had a very pure origin, and the living
principles of both are mercy, benevolence, and peace. But both
religions have in course of ages been overlaid with doctrines and
practices which have obscured the simplicity of their origin,
and even changed their character. But the greatest misfortune
to Christianity is that it has been made use of by princes
as a pretext for wars of aggression. In fact, nearly all the
wars of Europe for the last thousand years have been in some
way connected with religion. This is sometimes made a reproach
against Christianity, which professes to be founded on peace and
self-sacrifice, but the reproach is scarcely just. Rather it is
the peaceful character of Christianity which has induced ambitious
statesmen to make use of it to work out their own designs, just as
in private life unscrupulous men are sometimes enabled to carry
out questionable plans by using the names of men of blameless
character. We are only now concerned with the political aspect of
Christianity, not its merits as a religion. The modern history of
Turkey affords the best illustration of the danger of allowing
foreign Powers to interfere in matters of religion. During the
last hundred years Russia has several times made war on Turkey,
always on the pretext of protecting Christians, and it is this
which is fast breaking up the Turkish empire. It is interesting
to observe that Russia and France follow the same policy in this
matter. When the French Legation withdrew from Peking on the 2nd
day of the 7th moon of the 10th year of Kwanghsu (22nd August
1884), the affairs of the Christians were transferred to the
Russian Legation. The Ministers of the Tsungli-Yamên remember
very well how eagerly the Russian Minister assumed the office
of protector of Christians, going to even greater lengths in the
way of protection than the French themselves had done. The reason
for this is plain. Russia, although she has none now, expects to
have by-and-by many Christians in Mongolia and Manchuria who may
be extremely useful to her in her aggressive designs on China.
Therefore the Russian officials, always looking very far ahead,
were most anxious to establish a right of interference for the
protection of Christians. And they could do this without reproach
when they were acting not for themselves but for France during
war-time; well knowing that, whatever position she succeeded in
establishing for France, Russia could claim for herself when the
proper time came. But the more anxious Russia and France are to
assert the right of interfering with Chinese Christians, the more
resolute China should be in resisting all such interference. The
only safety for China is to treat Christians, whether Chinese
or foreign, exactly as all other people are treated--to make no
distinctions. Foreign missionaries have the right to travel and
reside in the interior; they can exercise this right without
getting passports from the French Minister. The Catholic missions
are composed of men of all nations, but they all have Ministers in
Peking to whom they can apply for passports. Let the Germans get
their passports from the German Legation, the Spaniards from the
Spanish, Italians, Belgians, and Hollanders from their respective
Legations, but no European State has any right to arrogate to
itself the position of protector of missionaries in general.
It is satisfactory to learn that the head of the Catholic Church
is of this opinion, and although grateful to France for what
she has done in the past, is now desirous of being free from
French protection in the future. To carry out these views, the
Pope is about to send to China a very high official to reside
in Peking and perform the functions of a Minister. As the Pope
has no troops and no territory, but is merely a kind of Dalai
Lama, there is no danger to China from opening direct relations
with him. The affairs of the missionaries can then be dealt with
in an open and straightforward manner, as no fear of political
traps will lurk behind. The Christians when they know they are no
longer protected by a military State will understand that their
security will depend on their own wisdom in avoiding offence.
And the officials and people, on the other hand, will gradually
learn that the Christians are only anxious to lead virtuous
lives, without any political ambition, and they will respect
them. The Imperial Government will then also be able to extend
its favour to all Christians and missionaries without the fear
of nursing traitors in its bosom. The missionaries have among
them men of great learning and much skill in sciences, which the
Emperor Kanghsi--who must always stand as the model for Chinese
rulers--knew very well how to utilise. The present generation
possesses men no less capable of rendering good services to China,
and there would be no reason for not using them if the suspicion
of their being agents of the French Government were once cleared
away.
Notwithstanding so much clear thinking, however, the action of the
Chinese continued, as before, nebulous. They seemed never able to seize
the bull by the horns, but drifted on, allowing themselves constantly to
be put in the wrong, hoping perhaps to accomplish by illegitimate means
what was within their legal competence. Afraid or unwilling to control
the provincial authorities, they allowed outrages to be perpetrated for
which they refused redress until coercion was applied, thus affording to
foreign Powers a not in all cases unwelcome pretext for extending their
protection even to Chinese Christians. Within a month of the consummation
of the transfer of the Pei-t'ang Cathedral, and after the Marquis Tsêng,
fresh from Europe, had taken his seat at the Board, the Tsungli-Yamên had
fallen into its chronic apathy with regard to Christians. A missionary
named Bodinier arrived in Peking from distant Kweichow for the purpose
of soliciting the intervention or intercession of the French Legation
in favour of the persecuted Christians in that province. While he
was on his journey the Catholics of Chungking in Szechuan were being
similarly maltreated. Certain disturbances in that great commercial mart
culminated in the attack on the house of a wealthy Christian family, which
resisted the assailants, several of whom were killed in the affray. The
magistrates, who had been supine during the time when the mischief was
brewing, thereupon arrested the head of the Lo family and condemned him
to death,--an exercise of authority which was held to be arbitrary, and
invidiously directed against Christians. Here was an occasion when the
Central Government should have taken prompt action, and so deprived the
French Government of any pretext for interference. It was a moment when
that Government was less apt than usual to put forth its power in the
Christian cause. M. Constans was Minister in China, and he was personally
not at all disposed to assume the protection of Chinese Christians.
Nevertheless, the case being urgent, and the Tsungli-Yamên either cowardly
or indifferent, M. Constans broke through the rule he had laid down for
himself so far as to telegraph to Paris for instructions. The reply was
prompt, doubtless inspired by the propaganda at home, to the effect that
he should take up the case of Mr Lo. Thus the Chinese threw away a golden
opportunity of showing to the world that the Chinese Christians did not
stand in need of any foreign aid. An impartial investigation might have
shown, indeed, that the Christians were the aggressors, and the local
Chinese officials might have been vindicated from the charges made against
them. But the Government's inaction constantly puts it in the wrong even
when it may be substantially in the right. The same fatal course has been
regularly pursued even to our day, with results patent to all.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] The effect of these imposing edifices, which dwarf into
insignificance the most pretentious native buildings, is well
exemplified in the approach to Canton, where the French cathedral
church, erected on the site of the Viceroy Yeh's _yamên_, is the
only object visible, and where the idea of a permanent memorial
of defeat is well realised. It is not a conciliatory policy;
irresistible force is required to maintain it.
[28] See _supra_, p. 308.