The official correspondence of Sir Claude MacDonald with Lord
Salisbury[1]--The murder of Mr. Brooks--Useless representations
to the Tsung-li-Yamên--Misrepresentations of the Chinese
ambassador in London--The disturbed Shantung province--Danger of
missionaries--Details of Brooks’ murder--The British Minister’s
apologies for Chinese murderers--The natural result of travelling in
a wheelbarrow--Yu-H’sien, Governor of Shantung--The Boxer movement
spreading--Serious trouble expected--A naval demonstration in North
Chinese waters deemed advisable--The French Minister the only one
well informed.
[1] Correspondence respecting the Insurrectionary Movement in China.
H.M. Stationery Office (Harrison & Sons).
It was probably with the murder of Mr. Brooks near the town of
Fei-ch’eng, in Shantung province, where he was travelling, that
the work of the anti-foreign movement in China came for the first
time under the notice of the British Minister in Pekin. In a
telegraphic despatch to the Marquis of Salisbury, dated January 4,
1900, he reported the murder as having been perpetrated by a band
of anti-foreign rebels, and added that “the part of China where the
murder took place is very disturbed, and I and my French, American,
and German colleagues have been making strong representations” (to the
Tsung-li-Yamên).
These “strong representations,” however, were treated in the usual
Chinese fashion. A message of regret from the Empress-Dowager and
Emperor, and a cleverly-worded letter from Sir Chichen Lofengluh
(Chinese Ambassador in London), in which he misrepresented the
assassins of the English missionary as “brigands,” whereas they were
members of the Ih-hwo-Ch’uan, or Boxer society for the extirpation
of foreigners in China. As usual, the empty words “No efforts will
be spared to bring the parties concerned in the murder to condign
punishment” closed the letter of the Chinese Ambassador.
[Sidenote: FOREIGNERS IN DANGER]
[Illustration: JUNKS WITH REFUGEES]
Sir Claude MacDonald, writing from Pekin on January 5, informed the
Government for the first time that the northern part of Shantung had
for several months been disturbed by bands of rebels connected with
various secret societies, which had been defying the authorities and
pillaging the people. “An organisation known as the Boxers,” he wrote
to Lord Salisbury, “has attained special notoriety, and their ravages
recently spread over a large portion of Southern Chili, where the
native Christians appear to have suffered, even more than the rest of
the inhabitants, from the lawlessness of these marauders. The danger to
which, in both provinces, foreign missionary establishments have thus
been exposed has been the subject of repeated representations to the
Chinese Government by other foreign Representatives, especially by the
German and United States Ministers and myself.”
He reports, by the way as it were, full particulars of Mr. Brooks’s
murder on December 31, the day after his capture, by thirty Boxers, and
how the unfortunate man, having been tied and wounded, had subsequently
been beheaded and his body flung into a ditch. He goes on to say that
he has “taken occasion to remind the Yamên Ministers that there were
other British missionaries in the district where Mr. Brooks was killed,
and to impress upon their Excellencies the necessity of securing
sufficient protection to these. I do not, however, entertain serious
apprehensions as to their safety, because guards of soldiers have
been for some time past stationed to protect the various missionary
residences.”
Eventually Sir Claude ends his letter, in a kind of apologetic way for
the Chinese murderers, by saying that the “unfortunate man [Mr. Brooks]
who was murdered was seized when he was travelling by wheelbarrow,
without escort, through the country infested by rebels.”
Why did Sir Claude omit to mention that such means of travel are those
of all people of moderate wealth in that country, and possibly in some
parts the only way by which one can travel at all? In fact, if Mr.
Brooks travelled in a wheelbarrow it was, in all probability, chiefly
in order to attract less notice and give no offence to the natives. Sir
Claude, however, seemed so much flattered at having received a visit
from the Ministers of the Tsung-li-Yamên and other high officials that
he accepted wholesale the fine promises and assurances of the Chinese.
Early in December 1899 Yu-H’sien, Governor of Shantung, was ordered
to vacate his post, and General Yuan-Shih-K’ai was appointed in his
place. The General was said to have pro-foreign tendencies, and was
at the head of the foreign-drilled troops, of which he had some eight
thousand men.
[Sidenote: TOO LATE!]
He naturally arrived too late to save Mr. Brooks, whom he regretted
to report murdered by red-turbaned Boxers at Mao-chia-pu, to which
place they had led him. He also reported that rebels had collected and
made disturbances in the two districts of P’ing Yin and Fei-Ch’eng, in
Shantung.
Telegraphing to Lord Salisbury on March 10, Sir Claude MacDonald laid
great stress on the spreading of the Boxer disturbances and on the
enlisting of recruits, whose drilling was proceeding in the environs
of Pekin and Tientsin, notwithstanding the fact that he (Sir Claude)
and his American, French, German and Italian colleagues had, on January
27 and February 27, addressed a report to the Tsung-li-Yamên, and
had urged that an Imperial decree should be published declaring the
suppression of the two anti-foreign secret societies that were causing
disturbances in Shantung and Chili. On March 2 the five Representatives
paid a personal visit to the Yamên, but the Ministers declined to
publish the decree.
What more proof could have been given that the Government was, even at
that time, protecting and encouraging the Boxer movement? for, if not,
what plausible reason could there be for not suppressing a rebellious
agitation which, besides pillaging and destroying the property of
Christians and non-Christians alike, would in all probability soon lead
the Chinese Emperor into war with all European nations?
Sir Claude, apparently concerned at the serious turn affairs were
taking, recommended that, in case the Chinese Government still
refused to publish the decree asked for, and in case the state of
affairs did not materially improve, a few ships of war of each
nationality should make a naval demonstration in North Chinese waters.
Identical recommendations, he telegraphed, were cabled home by his
four colleagues, viz., the American, French, German and Italian
Representatives. Naturally enough, Lord Salisbury and the Home
Government, who had until that time been led to believe that there was
nothing to fear from the Boxers, duly cabled back on March 11: “It
will be desirable to resort to naval action only when other means of
pressure are exhausted.”
[Illustration: A FRENCH MAN-OF-WAR]
Other nations (America excepted) viewed the situation in a different
light. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, interviewed by Sir E.
Monson (British Ambassador in Paris), did not, on opening the despatch,
hesitate for a moment to express his opinion that if the Pekin
Ministers had all agreed in telegraphing so strongly, the affair must
be urgent, and that the French Government could not properly refuse to
authorise the naval demonstration in order to protect its own subjects.
[Sidenote: REPRESENTATIONS]
This attitude was apparently viewed with jealousy and concern by the
Anglo-Saxon Governments, for repeated representations were made on
behalf of the British Government to M. Delcassé, the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs, in order to make him clearly understand that neither
England nor the United States of America would associate themselves
with any such action, and that they would severally protect their
respective subjects. In fact, Sir E. Monson went out of his way to
show his gladness when he was informed that France would wait for more
precise information before acting.