Evening Post SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1930. A SLANDEROUS MYTH

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 39, 15 February 1930, Page 8

Evening Post SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1930. A SLANDEROUS MYTH

The belief is widely accepted and violently proclaimed by Chinese patriots and British humanitarians that extra-territoriality is a principle devised _5y the commercialism and the militarism of Britain for the express purpose of oppressing and exploiting China, but it is very far from the truth. The principle, if not as old as , history, is certainly older than British history, and in past ages was of common application throughout Europe and the civilised world. It is, indeed, possible tha. without it Britain might never have been a Christian country. When St. Paul stood up before Fcstus at Caesarea, and escaped from the fate which would have overtaken him in Jerusalem, if not on the return journey, by appealing to Caesar, we are apt to liken it to an appeal lo the Privy Council, but, as the Rev. W. E. Soothill, Professor of Chinese at the University of Oxford, points out, the principle in question underlay the appeal. In ancient times, he writes, in his book on "China and England," one of the well-known examples was tho privilege of Roman citizenship—"Civis Romanus sum"—a privilege which, for instance, saved St. Paul from the death which awaited him at the hands of his own fellow-countrymen. By this appeal to Extra-territoriality he was spared, to give Christianity to • the world. But in this broad sense of the term it is better illustrated by the internal administration of the British Empire than by its rights in China. In international law, according to the "Standard Dictionary," "extraterritoriality" means the state or privilege of freedom from (local) territorial jurisdiction, accorded to foreign sovereigns, to diplomatic representatives, their suites, and to a certain extent their dwellings. It is worth noting in passing that some of the authorities favour the more convenient form "exterritoriality," but tliat the still more convenient "extrality"—possibly a journalist's coinage in the interests of speed and economy in cabling—appears to have no dictionary support. The definition that we have quoted seems in limiting the term to diplomatic immunities to narrow its meaning unduly even for the purposes of international law. Professor Soothill's simple and comprehensive definition is better than any that we have found in the dictionaries:— the privilege of remaining under the laws of one's nation while residing maa foreign land; or, the privilege of an outside nation to control and protect its subjects dwelling within another nation. By giving equal prominence to the individual and the national aspects of the privileges involved, and cutting out any diplomatic or quasidiplomatic limitation, Professor Soothill's definition covers the full scope of the problem that has recently become one of the conspicuous issues of international politics. China was roused from the sleep of ages by her contact with the West, and within', the last thirty years has become so permeated by Western ideas that she resents the privileges established by the "unequal treaties" which were a necessary cover for the process. As we have said, the extra-terri-torial principle recognised by these treaties was not the invention of Britain, nor was its application to China the result of Britain's initiative. The principle had been in operation in China more than two centuries before it was of the slightest value to Britain, and when the treaty was signed which gave her the privilege if was not of her seeking. When towards the close of the 18th century British traders first came into contact with China on a scale considered large enough to require diplomatic protection, the Tsing Dynasty was on the throne. It had been established by the Manchus when they conquered the country in 1643, and had been in continuous operation ever since. It was a law, writes Professor Soothill, already in existence for the Manchus, who wore subject, not to Chinese law, but to Manchu; for their military colonies and the Manchu peoplo dwelling in China remained under their own separate, law. Manchu offenders were therefore tried, not in tho Chinese Courts, but by Manchus, and were punished by Manchus according to the Manchu code. In this respect there was a clear parallel with Roman citizenship in its extra-territorial characteristics. It was npt, therefore, in the least difficult for Manchu, or, for that matter, Chinese rulers, to understand and evaluate the desire of foreigners to be under their own laws, though the demand at first was not willingly conceded. In view of the influences which have inflamed Chinese passions against the present treaties, it is interesting to learn from Mr. Soothill that Russia in 1689 was the first Western nation to get some sort of recognition of the principle in question. More than a century passed before Britain moved in the matter, and neither then nor for more tli an half a century later was there any suggestion of extra-territoriality on either side. The only fruit of Lord Macartney's mission in 1793 was a superb specimen of insolent and inflated elo-

quence in the form of a "mandate" from the Emperor Cliien Lung to George 111. I have perused your memorial, wrote the Emperor with truly celestial condescension. The1 earnest terms in which it is couched reveal a respectful humility on your part which is highly praiseworthy. . . . Swaying the wide world, I have but on© aim in view, namely, to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfil the duties of the State: strange and costly objects do not .interest me. If I have commanded that the- tribute offerings sent by you, O King, are to be accepted this waa solely in consideration, for the spirit ■which prompted you to • dispatch them from afar. Our dynasty's majestic virtue has penetrated into every country under Heaven, and Kings of all nations have offered their costly tribute by land and sea. As your Ambassador can see for himself, wo possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country Js manufactures. Equal arrogance but less eloquence was Lord Amherst's portion in 1816, with the result that he returned from a similar mission with even less to show for it than his predecessor. As it was made a condition of his reception that he should perform the kowtow, Lord Amherst preferred not to be received. With all his overflowing love for the Chinese, even Mr. Lansbury might have found it difficult to comply with that condition, and he certainly would not deny that in those days the arrogance was not on the side of Britain. • While the general veto of the Chinese Government on diplomatic relations was maintained, all Occidentals, except Russians, on Chinese soil, were in Chinese eyes under Chinese law. ,Had the Chinese Government been willing to enter diplomatic relations with the Westy says' Professor Soothill, it is unlikely that its claim would ever have been disputed. In the course of another generation, the only rational objection taken by Chien Lung to diplomatic relations— China's independence of British manufactures—had disappeared. In 1842 the Treaty of Nanking, which included an express pledge of equal status in official intercourse, was signed. It was not till 1858 that the Tientsin Treaties contained the first explicit recognition of extraterritoriality. By that time this principle seemed to have become a necessary cure for the intolerable grievances of European traders and residents, which the Nanking Treaty had hardly touched. The gradual withdrawal of Britain's extraterritorial rights in China, which Mr. Henderson and Sir Miles Lampson are endeavouring to negotiate, may or may not be sound policy, but the slander on their predecessors contained in the current myth about the origin of these rights is certainly no part of their case.