THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1884

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7161, 29 October 1884, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1884

The English papers, received by ]asfc mail throw a considerable degree of light on the cause and nature of the hostilities at present existing between France and China. As will be remembered, a misunderstanding arose about the refusal of the Chinese Court to

surrender its right of suzerainty oyer the kingdom of Anam when the King of that country consented to become the vassal of France. Desultory fighting thereafter took place between the forces of the two Empires ; but, in the course of time, an agreement was said to have been come to by M. Fournier on the one side and Li Hung Chang on the other, arranging the terms of peace. Hostilities were then supposed to have terminated when the Jjangson affair occurred, respecting which, it is alleged, the French troops were betrayed into an ambuscade by the commander of that citadel whife they were proceeding to take possession of the place according to the terms of treaty. Upon this a feeling of indignation was manifested by the French Ministry and war authorities, and severe measures were ordered for the purpose of inflicting chastisement on China. It was in the execution of these orders that the bombardment of Foochow and Kelung was undertaken, and the impression has been industriously circulated that these acts of war and ruthless destruction of both life and property were justified by the alleged breach of faith.

It now appears, however, that it was no breach of faith on the part of China but intemperate and hasty, action on the part of the French that led to the Langson affair and the consequent renewal of hostilities. A despatch of General Millot, commander of the French forces in Tonquin, has been published by the French Minister of War. in which the former censures very severely the conduct of Colonel- Dugenne, who summoned the commander of Langson to surrender at a time when £he latter had received no instructions from his Government to evacuate the citadel. The demand made on this officer to capitulate, notwi.thstA.ding the assurance that he was without orders as to how he should act was a contravention of international law, and could be only dealt with in one way, that is—resisted by all available means. Had he treated the matter otherwise and delivered up the fortress before his own Government had communicated to him their desire, the commander at Langson would have made himself liable to execution for treason. The French Government have of course accompanied the publication of the above despatch with, their own explanation of it. They " try to evade responsibility by continuing to represent the Langson affair as a trap set for tli3 troops of General Miliot, though • they admit that Colonel Dugenne was censurable for his indiscretion in commencing action without orders from his general. To admit this much, however, is. really to admit the whole charge. Head between the lines, it means that on the surrender of the fort being refused, the subordinate officer in charge of the French troops sent to take possession had, without the authority of his chief, ordered an attack on its defences, and got beaten. This affront to the French arms was not to be tolerated, and hence the mistake of the fiery colonel was repeated by the French Government. Without waiting for an explanation as they ought to have done, and as he ought to have done before them, they rushed to the conclusion, not only that the commander at Langson had been guilty of treachery, but also that the Chinese authorities were parties to it, and proceeded forthwith to make reprisals. The plea they, set up puts them out o£ court, and shows that they had lost their heads quite as much as the impetuous Colonel Dugenne. Of {his fact the resignation of General Millot, and the censure now passed on Colonel Dugenne, and, still more, the suppression of the reasons by which these two events could be fully accounted for, furnish ample proof. If any further evidence were necessary it is to be found in the statement made by M. Jules Ferry to the Paris correspondent of the London Times, that the only object of his Government in the renewed hostilities " was to punish the Chinese for having contemned or ignored the power of France."

Such, then, is the strange origin of that extraordinary state of things now existing between the two Empires, namely war without a declaration of war. The whole business, it must be confessed, reflects the highest discredit on Prance; and, despite the success which has attended the bombardment of Foochow- and Kelung by her ironclads, and the inflated and unreliable reports of victories .won by her forces on land, it is likely to cost her dearly before all is over. The resistance offered by the Chinese troops is, to say the least, baffling, and the very doggedness with which it is maintained promises to make the affair a very exhaustive as well as a perilous one for France. So serious, indeed, does the situation appear that the general now in command had, according to a recent telegram, demanded that his army should be reinforced by 10,000 men. On the other hand, the political outlook in Europe is such that it is very doubtful if this request can be safely complied with. In its issue of the 2nd September the Journal Officiel states that, ten months ago, General CamDenon, Minister of,- War, when asked "hy the committee on the Tonquin credit what number of troops could be detached from the army in Prance without jeopardising its mobilisation, replied, "Six thousand men, not one mote." According also to latest advices, a portion of the French Press dwells with suggestive emphasis on the fact that Prance is being weakened bv the dispersion of her forces. These circumstances ar§ significant, and show that, in view of probable European exigencies, her quarrel with China is already straining the resources of Prance, and that the feeling of the nation has never been really in favour of the expedition against either Anam or China. These facts suffice to account for the reluctance of M. Ferry's Government to formally declare war against China, and also for their solicitude to secure themediationof the United States for a settlement of all matters in dispute between the two Empires. The invasion of China by France is obviously impossible ; all that the French force can do is to inflict damage on some of the ports ; and the more mischief done in this way will only render the Chinese more stubborn in their resistance; while there is also imminent risk of it involving France in difficulties with the other treaty Powers. To these perplexities must also be added the fact i that the expectation of an indemnity to cover the cost of hostilities is likely [\to prove an illusion. The demand for this is, according to latest advices i

spurned by the Court of Pekin, and with very good reason. Taking even the version of the Langston affair given by her own authorities, it is not France that is entitled to demand an indemnity from China; on the contrary, Jit is China that would be justified in demanding an indemnity from France. It may be said indeed that should China refuse to yield, the Island of Formosa will be seized and held by the forces of France until her claims are satisfied. But this, even if allowed by the treaty Powers, will not secure the object which France most needs, namely, the cessation of hostilities; while, any day, events may suddenly occur in Europe demanding every man and rifle she possesses.