relating to Siam had been signed, demanding the opening of the West Canton River to foreign trade, and the retrocession of the Burmese Shan territory which had been handed over to China under the Convention that China had so insolently broken. All we know of the upshot of the ultimatum is from Mr. Curzon's answer in the House on the 20th of May following, in which he said that the Chinese Government had assented to the opening of the West River, and negotiations were proceeding as to the ports of call, and ports open to trade where consular officers may be established. The importance of the retrocession to us by China of the Burmese Shan territory, demanded by the ultimatum, is well known to Lord Salisbury, as for a considerable distance it gives path to the projected Burma-Siam-China Railway. The construction of this railway has for many years been advocated by me and by the Chambers of Commerce of this kingdom, and now promises fairly to be carried into execution. At the meeting of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, on the 30th of June, last year, a resolution was unanimously passed: That connexion by railway of a seaport in Burmah with South-West China is greatly required in order to open out to the trade of the empire our new territories in the basin of the Mekong, and to enable manufacturers of the empire to compete with those of France in Northern Siam and in South-West China. On the same day a large and influential deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce was received by Lord Salisbury and Lord George Hamilton. The deputation urged upon the attention of the Government the importance of recovering the Burmese Shan territory that had been ceded by the abrogated Convention to China; failing that, the necessity of insisting on the right to carry the railway through that territory to Ssumao; and for the obtaining of the consent of China to carry the railway through Ssumao into the provinces of China, on similar terms as were granted by China to France by the Franco-Chinese Convention of 1895. The deputation, moreover, expressed strongly the hope that the Government of India would come to an arrangement with Siam whereby the survey and estimates for the sections of the line lying within their respective territories might be promptly undertaken by the Powers concerned, with the view of the early construction of this important connection. The deputation was most favourably received. In the course of his reply Lord Salisbury said: At a time when so many nations of the world think that it is a great achievement of statesmen to exclude the commerce of other nations, it is more than ever important to us that we should obtain access to great foreign markets. ... I do not value the mere addition of so many square miles of territory; what I value is the addition of so many free markets to the commerce of the country. Looking at the matter from that point of view, of course there is nothing that interests us more than this attempt to obtain access to the markets of China from behind, where practically we are almost without a rival, if not entirely without a rival, and where we shall tap the sources of supply and give an outlet to the efforts of industry which no other arrangement by the seaboard can accomplish. . . . I have this answer to make—you provide a powerful and solvent company; we will assist you so far as we can to bring it to the edge of the British territory, and when we have done so I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be able to penetrate into foreign territory whenever we think it desirable to do so. I can assure you not only of the good-will, but of the assistance of the British and Indian Governments to the utmost of their power. I have no doubt from an engineering point of view that Mr. Holt Hallett is most fully justified in the view that he takes, and that it would be a great benefit to the world if he could carry his railway from Raheng, in the valley of the Upper Menam, into the districts of China, and I hope he will do so. After such a speech from the Prime Minister, and with the fact staring us in the face that Russia and France are now actively pushing their railways into Chinese territory, it is not likely that British interests will suffer from neglect in that direction. The Chambers of Commerce are now awaiting an answer to their letter despatched by the Secretary of State for India to the Government of that country, asking the Government to have surveys and estimates for the first section of the line made at State expense, in order to enable a powerful and solvent company, with such assistance as the Government may think fit to accord, to undertake and execute the work. The more China is opened up to the trade of the world, the more interested will the non-aggressive nations of the world be in maintaining its independence. Lord Salisbury deserves not only the thanks of the British Empire, but of China and of all other commercial and manufacturing nations who desire to trade and increase trade with that great market of the future, for what he has done and has promised to do for the future development of the world's commerce with Central Indo-China and Southern China by the opening of West River to steam navigation and trade, and by forcing China to respect in spirit as well as in letter the trading privileges granted under the most favoured nation clause, virtually to the whole world by her treaties, and by promising the best assistance in the power of the Government to make the Burma-Siam-China Railway an accomplished fact. This railway promises to provide as great advantages for the commerce of the world as the Russian Siberian-Pacific and the French TongkingChina Railways will respectively provide for the commerce of Russia and France. To complete the work of opening China to trade, and to secure the independence of the Chinese Empire, China should be induced by joint pressure brought to bear upon her by the governments of the neighbouring Powers—or, if their jealousy of each other will not allow them to combine, by nations interested in maintaining her independence and fostering and expanding their own trade-to open the whole of her waterways to steam navigation, the whole of her territory to the unrestricted commerce of the world, and, keeping salt and opium as Government monopolies, to abolish the whole of her other internal taxation on trade, placing the collection of her duties on foreign trade entirely in the hands of the only honest administration that she at present possesses, the Imperial Maritime Customs. A system that dots customs-barriers and likin stations along every land and water highway cannot survive the spread of railways and steam navigation. It is an obsolete system, like that of our old turnpike gates. By strangling and impeding commerce, it prevents the growth of the wealth of the people, and breeds poverty and its ensuing evils, discontent and rebellion. China without honesty, ability, and enterprise breathed into her administration is as a man without a backbone. To advance, as she should do if she wishes to maintain her independence, she must remodel on Indian or Japanese lines her taxation and administrative machinery. It is her rotten form of government, the ignorance, corruption, and incompetence of her officials, and her lack of a proper system of military and naval machinery and equipment, that led to her defeat by an Asiatic Power possessing barely one tenth of her own population, and made her the laughing-stock of France, subservient to Russia, the easy prey of Japan, and a terror to no one but the German Emperor. HOLT S. HALLETT. NOTE ON THE DECLARATION OF PARIS In his 'Note on the Declaration of Paris' Mr. Bowles states that in a recent article I have overlooked in some important respects the laws and conventions of international law; he recalls the articles of the Declaration in question, affirms their 'tremendous importance,' and declares that their doctrine will at once deprive us of our carrying trade in war and effectually cripple our sea power. He adds that, under the terms of the Declaration, no corsair can be commissioned or cruise, but, at the same time, that British merchandise will, 'largely if not generally,' cease to be carried in British ships in war-time. I have one serious cause for complaint against my courteous critic, for he makes me affirm that hostile cruisers have the right to destroy defenceless merchant vessels. If he will refer to my article he will find that I never discussed the right but only the intention, which is quite a different matter; and, so far from regarding it as a right, I plainly stated that I could not credit that a chivalrous country like France would ever be guilty of such an intolerable action. Mr. Bowles's argument assumes throughout that the doctrine of the Declaration will be upheld by the belligerents; I, on the contrary, maintain that we have no adequate security that this will be the case, and that the whole theory and practice of the modern French school points to an opposite conclusion. What was this Declaration? It was a document signed by Lord Clarendon, then Foreign Minister, and by Lord Cowley, British Ambassador to France, on behalf of Great Britain, and never ratified like the treaties which accompanied and preceded it. The preamble stated that the object of the Powers was to establish a uniform doctrine; this uniformity was not obtained, since neither Spain, nor the United States, nor Mexico, adhered or have since adhered to it. 'Privateering,' says the Declaration, 'is and remains abolished;' but it is not abolished, since the doctrine is not universally accepted, and, so far from remaining abolished, the institution of auxiliary cruisers is, in the expressed opinion of the French General Staff, a 'moyen détourné de faire revivre la guerre de course,' and to this 'moyen détourné❜ the French and other nations have fully subscribed by the adoption of similar measures; out of their own mouths we can therefore convict them. 3 Some years ago Mr. Bowles wrote a closely argued and eloquent treatise upon this subject, and in case he should complain that I am about to throw musty phrases at his head, I reply, by anticipation, that if his valuable work is no longer new, the doctrine it deals with remains, in theory, unaltered. Mr. Bowles writes as follows of the Declaration: "The sovereign of Great Britain has affixed no sign manual to it; the Houses of Parliament, though often challenged, have always refused to confirm it by a vote; and to this day the Declaration remains what it was when signed-the act of Lords Clarendon and Cowley, done entirely without any known authority, and if by any authority at all, by one which must have been insufficient, since neither Lord Clarendon, nor Lord Cowley, nor any other person, has ever ventured to disclose it.' 'All experience,' he concludes, 'proves that it would be futile to rely upon the observance of such engagements.' That is my case, and it is proved up to the hilt by what followed. The same individuals I hesitate to call them plenipotentiaries-who signed the Declaration drew up the Treaty of Paris, which was duly and solemnly ratified by their respective Governments; yet at the first convenient opportunity Russia denounced the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty, and no action was taken by the co-signatories. Russia again in 1780 created the armed neutrality to defend the cardinal principle of the Declaration, and yet thirteen years later, when it no longer suited her 1 Nineteenth Century, February 1897. 2 French Naval Policy in Peace and War,' ibid., January 1897. Maritime Warfare, T. G. Bowles, 1877. interests, denounced it, declared the contrary principle, and carried it into effect by force of arms. What validity and what force can Mr. Bowles expect a practical people to attribute to a Declaration and a doctrine, the former of which was, by his own admission, 'unauthorised' and never ratified, while the latter is shown by history to have so little binding power the moment it conflicts with national interests ? Moreover, I have not dealt with the general question, but only with a particular case of hostilities between our country and France, both signatories of the Declaration. Mr. Bowles distinctly states in his book that if war between two nations puts an end, as it does, to all treaties previously existing between them, much more must it put an end to a declaration of this nature;' and unless Mr. Bowles has greatly altered his views, I cannot account for the 'tremendous importance' he now attaches to the Declaration, nor for the imposing edifice of theory he raises upon such an insecure foundation. Again, if we are to assume, with Mr. Bowles, that in war-time British merchandise will, 'largely if not generally,' cease to be carried in British ships, all our naval policy must be at fault, for we annually vote large sums for the maintenance of our fleet of cruisers, which the public has been led to believe is required, largely if not generally, for the protection of its merchandise in war. As for the article of the Declaration which lays down that the neutral flag covers the enemy's merchandise with the exception of contraband of war, it appears to me futile to discuss the point unless my critic will tell me what is and what is not going to be declared contraband of war. France, as we know, during the last war with China declared rice to be contraband; if rice, the staple food of the East, why not wheat in the West, and if wheat, why not all food? The pursuit of the French claim to its logical conclusions would carry us very far indeed. I have the highest respect for my critic's authority upon the theory of international law, but I am forced to dissent from certain of his conclusions. I differ from him in his desire to see the Declaration denounced. It is a question of high policy as well as of expediency. If the possession of a predominant navy gives us many rights, it also imposes on us many duties; it is not for us to denounce any engagements, no matter how informally expressed, to which we have set our name. If our enemy acts contrary to the Declaration, let him incur the odium and the inevitable losses which his action will bring in its train; if he destroys our cables, which serve the world, let it be our duty to repair them, as we are well able to do. By such action we shall secure the double advantage of placing ourselves in the right before the world, and at the same time of best serving our true interests. When the war comes the Government will decide with a full knowledge of all the surrounding facts; our rivals, as they constantly tell us, will not allow their action to be fettered by parchments signed by well-meaning philanthropists, or by the dictum of some poor academician, but solely by the dictates of their material interests. The whole field of international law, in its relation to maritime warfare, is covered, so far as the belligerents are concerned, by the possession of a predominant navy; as between the belligerents the law of maritime warfare is shown by history to be the negation of all law, and the substitution of the will of the Power possessing the dominant navy. If we have this we shall not only impose our will upon an enemy, but, no matter what action we may take, find, as I believe, the most accomplished jurists to condone our action; if we have not, no treaties will save us, and we shall have to submit to the will of our enemy. I leave Mr. Bowles to tell us within what limits of moderation a victorious enemy is likely to condescend to indulge us. February 8. CHARLES À COURT. The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake to return unaccepted MSS. |