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]

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.”

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.