CHAPTER XXIII

Militarist Policy—Liaotung Peninsula—Intervention of Three Powers—Leases of Chinese Territory by Germany, Russia, Great Britain and France—Spheres of Interest.

The origin of the activity displayed by Japan in the reorganization of her army and navy, the efficiency of which was so strikingly demonstrated in the war with China, may be traced to the military tendencies of the two clans which had practically governed the country since the Restoration. It was the military strength of these clans which was, as we have seen, the determining factor in the struggle preceding the Restoration; it was this, again, that carried the new Government safely through the earlier internal troubles, and enabled it to pursue successfully in the face of many difficulties its policy of gradual reform. In the process of surmounting these difficulties, and even more, perhaps, in the very work of reconstruction, in so far as this related to naval and military reorganization, it was only natural that the tendencies in question should be developed. Other influences which worked in the same direction were the desire to attain equality with Western Powers, to assert the independence of the nation, still impaired, in public opinion, by offensive Treaty stipulations, and the wish to be in a position to act vigorously in matters concerning the nation’s intercourse with its neighbours on the continent of Asia. Even, therefore, before the war with China something very near to a militarist spirit had become apparent in administrative circles. The signal success achieved by both army and navy in the course of the campaign favoured the growth of this feeling. It became clear to all attentive observers that henceforth the existence of a militarist party in the country was a factor to be reckoned with in any estimate of the future course of Japanese policy. The leading exponents of this militarist policy were, of course, to be found amongst naval and military officers, but their views were shared by the Japanese statesmen who had taken a prominent part in military reforms; by others, whose declarations on foreign policy from time to time were tinged with a Chauvinism that deepened with the increase of Japan’s position in the world; and by a section of the Japanese Press.

During the Shimonoséki negotiations the influence of the military party, fresh from its success in the war, had been exerted to secure an even larger cession of territory on the mainland than that eventually agreed upon. The discussions which took place on this point between the military leaders and the Japanese plenipotentiary, the late Prince Itō, whose enemies could never accuse him of any leaning towards Chauvinism, resembled those which took place between Bismarck and von Moltke at the close of the Franco-German war of 1870. In this instance Prince Itō’s more moderate views prevailed, with the result recorded in the Treaty.

Had the Japanese Government been gifted with a prescience enabling it to anticipate the series of aggressive acts on the part of European Powers for which its attempt to annex territory on the Chinese mainland gave the signal, the attempt might, possibly, never have been made. Had it even foreseen the determined opposition of certain European Powers to the cession of even this extent of Chinese territory on the mainland, it is probable that its demands would have undergone still further modification. The ambition of the German Emperor to play a more active part in foreign questions, and to secure for Germany an influence abroad commensurate, as it seemed to him, with its dignity as an Empire, not to mention the steps he was taking about this time to give effect to his intentions by commencing the construction of what was soon to become a powerful navy, had not escaped the attention of Japanese Ministers. Nor had his warning in regard to what he described as the Yellow Peril passed unnoticed. Of the general trend of European diplomacy they were not ignorant, but of its special bearing on Far Eastern matters they were, apparently, not fully aware, in spite of the indication of Russia’s interest in Manchuria furnished by her Circular Note to the Great Powers in February, 1895, and the warning of impending trouble said to have been given by Germany to Japan in the following month before the armistice was concluded. The possible extension to the Far East of the mischievous activity of the Kaiser, the designs of Russia, and the results which might be expected to follow the conclusion of the recent Entente between that Power and France, were points that seem to have been insufficiently realized.

The Treaty of Shimonoséki was signed, as we have seen, on the 17th April. Eight days later the Russian and French Ministers in Tōkiō presented to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (the late Count Mutsu) identical Notes advising the Japanese Government “to renounce the definite possession of the Liaotung peninsula,” on the ground that “its possession by Japan would be a menace to Peking, and render illusory the independence of Korea.” On the same day a similar Note was presented by the German Minister. For the sudden intervention of these three Powers the Japanese Government was unprepared. The quickness with which it followed the signature of the Treaty, no less than the form of procedure adopted, left no doubt as to the serious intentions of the Powers concerned; while the association of Germany in the matter lent an ominous weight to the protest. Convinced that this was no idle threat, and realizing the futility of opposing a demand made by the three chief military Powers of Europe, the Japanese Government at once gave way, and consented to relinquish this portion of Chinese territory in return for an additional indemnity of 30,000,000 Kuping taels, equivalent to about £6,000,000. A Convention to this effect was signed at Peking on November 8th, 1895. It provided for the payment of the additional indemnity by the 25th of that month, and for the evacuation of the Liaotung peninsula to be completed within three months from that date.

The mention of “the Liaotung peninsula” in the protest of the three Powers is the first we hear of the term. It was not used by the Chinese, nor did it occur in the Shimonoséki Treaty. There the ceded territory is called “the southern portion of the province of Fêng-t’ien” (otherwise known as Shengking, and Moukden, though the latter is really the name of the provincial Capital), the Treaty frontier (never delimited) running roughly from Yingkow on the river Liao to the Yalu river, and to the north of the towns of Fenghwangcheng and Haicheng. But the Chinese used the term Liaotung, which means “East of the river Liao,” in a vague way to signify the territory which lies to the left of that river; and foreign geographers, in ignorance of the meaning of the term, had applied it to the bay into which the river flows, which appears in atlases as the “Liaotung Gulf.” When the intervention took place, it was probably found convenient to make use in the Notes of protest of a term already given in foreign atlases to the bay that forms the western boundary of the territory in question. Hence the adoption of the term “the Liaotung peninsula,” which was an error in geographical nomenclature. Once adopted, or, as may be said, invented, the convenience of the term led to its employment again when the Russo-Chinese Agreement for the lease of Port Arthur was made in 1898, though the territory then leased was limited to what is now known as the peninsula of Kwantung. It reappears in the additional Russo-Chinese Agreement of the same year. From that time the term seems to have passed into general use, for we find it in the Portsmouth Treaty of 1905.

The intervention of the three Powers had far-reaching consequences, none of which, in all probability, were foreseen at the time by any of the Governments concerned, though each may have felt that it had established a claim to the goodwill of China. Four months after Japan had agreed to the retrocession of the territory ceded to her by the Shimonoséki Treaty Russia, who had been the prime mover in the matter, proceeded to lay China under further obligations by rendering her financial assistance which facilitated the liberation of her territory. This took the form of a Chinese loan of £15,000,000, floated in Paris under Russia’s guarantee.

In January, 1896, one of the consequences above mentioned was seen in the settlement of various questions which the French Government had been pressing on the attention of the Government of China for some time. These questions related to the rectification of the Tonkin frontier, and to railway and mining concessions in the provinces of Yunnan, Kwangsi and Kwantung. This was only an instalment of the recompense for her services which France was to obtain. The arrangement with France regarding the Tonkin frontier constituted a breach of the Burma Convention of 1886, and of a later Convention of 1894, regulating the boundaries separating British and Chinese territories, which provided, _inter alia_, that no portion of two small States assigned to China should be alienated to any other Power without previous agreement with Great Britain. The dispute which arose over this question was eventually settled—as between Great Britain and France—by the joint Declaration of January 15th, 1896, fixing the boundary between the possessions, or spheres of influence, of the two Powers as far as the Chinese frontier, and arranging for all privileges conceded by China in the provinces of Yunnan and Szechwan to the two Powers, respectively, under their Agreements with China of 1894 and 1895 to be made common to both Powers and their nationals; and—as between Great Britain and China—by an Agreement signed on February 4th, 1897, modifying the previous boundary in favour of Great Britain, and opening the West river, which flows into the sea at Canton, to foreign trade.

Russia was the next to profit. She had already decided in 1892 to construct what is now the Trans-Siberian Railway with the object of linking up the eastern and western extremities of the Empire, and thus aiding the development of Siberia, as well as strengthening her position on the Pacific coast. The line, as then projected, was to run from Chiliabinsk in the Ural Mountains to the south-western shore of Lake Baikal, and from the south-eastern shore of the lake to Vladivostok, following for some distance the course of the Amur river; communication across the lake to be maintained by vessels specially constructed for the purpose. Work was commenced at both ends of the railway, and when the Shimonoséki Treaty was signed the line had been finished as far east as Chita, a town south-east of Lake Baikal, and within two hundred miles of the Chinese frontier.

The war between China and Japan had served a useful purpose for Russia in revealing both the weakness of China and the strength and ambitions of Japan. To check these ambitions in the direction of Manchuria, and forestall Japan by establishing herself in the coveted territory, was the task to which she now directed her energies. In the preliminary step by which the retrocession of the Liaotung peninsula was effected she was, as we have seen, aided by both France and Germany. Between the latter and herself some sort of roughly formulated understanding seems to have been arrived at, described by Reventlow in his _Deutschland’s Auswärtige Politik_ as a secret agreement between the Kaiser and the Tsar, the results of which were to be seen later. With France she worked throughout in the closest accord in the development of the new line of policy she had marked out for herself in the Far East, to which Belgian financiers also lent their co-operation. In return for Russia’s support in European affairs, as arranged by the Entente concluded between the two countries, France, for her part, was only too willing to encourage Russian aims in the Far East; and she was the more ready to do so, since this course assured her of reciprocal help in the prosecution of her own interests in China. Russia had been the connecting link between the three Powers whose intervention had restored the Liaotung peninsula to China. It was the relations she continued to maintain with her two associates after that incident—in the one case an informal understanding, in the other definite concerted action—which shaped the course of subsequent events in the Far East.

In _Ma Mission en Chine_, M. Gérard, who was French Minister in Peking during the period 1893–7, gives an account of the secret negotiations with China by means of which Russia succeeded in forestalling Japan in Manchuria. His book supplies the key to a correct understanding of the course of events, and throws much light on the political situation at the time of which he speaks. We learn how close was the accord then maintained between France and Russia; how skilfully Russia made use of the complaisant attitude of her two associates; and with what unscrupulous determination to compass her ends she traded on the weakness of China, on the claims she had established on the latter’s goodwill, and on the vanity and corruption of Chinese officials.

In May, 1896, according to M. Gérard, a secret Treaty was signed at St. Petersburg by Prince Lobanoff, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Li Hung Chang, Viceroy of Chihli, who had been sent to Russia as China’s representative at the Coronation of the late Tsar Nicholas II. The full text of this Treaty has never been published, but it promised to China Russian protection against Japan; China, in return for this guarantee of assistance, granting to Russia the privilege of using, in time of war, the harbours of Ta-lien Wan, in the Kwantung peninsula, and Kiaochow, in the province of Shantung, as bases for her fleet. Three months later (August 27th) a secret Railway Agreement was signed at St. Petersburg by Li Hung Chang and the representatives of the Russo-Chinese Bank. This institution, half the capital of which was French, had been created at the end of the previous year. M. Gérard explains that, in consequence of so large a portion of the bank’s capital being furnished by a French syndicate, the French Government insisted on receiving definite information regarding the negotiations in question. His statements regarding the French financial interest in the Russo-Chinese Bank are confirmed by other writers: by Chéradame, in his interesting book, _Le Monde et La Guerre Russo-Japonaise_, and by Débidour in _Histoire Diplomatique de l’Europe_. We learn also from M. Gérard that the Chinese Government had contributed, under the title of a deposit, 5,000,000 taels to the capital of the bank, explaining at the time, in answer to enquiries, that this sum represented China’s share of the cost of construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway; that for the building of this line a company called the Chinese Eastern Railway Company was formed, which, although Russo-Chinese in name, was a purely Russian concern; and that it was agreed that on the completion of the line in question the sum “deposited” by China should be returned to her. He adds that the President of the bank was Prince Ouchtomsky, who afterwards visited Peking at the head of a Russian Mission.

Both the Treaty and the Railway Agreement were ratified by the Chinese Government on the 18th September, and came into force on that date. The popular rumour which credited the Russian Minister in Peking with the negotiation of these two instruments was, it appears, due to the presence of M. Cassini at the Chinese Capital, where it was considered necessary for him to remain in order to secure their ratification by China. As a glance at a map of North-Eastern Asia will show, the Railway Agreement constituted a concession of the greatest importance to Russia. The Chinese Eastern Railway, the name of the new line which Russia obtained leave to construct, became the eastern section of the Trans-Siberian Railway, connecting Lake Baikal with Vladivostok, Russia’s outlet to the Pacific. The new line, which would traverse Northern Manchuria via Kharbin, Tsitsihar and Hailar, would shorten the distance by more than 300 miles. Moreover, the more level country through which the line was to pass presented few engineering difficulties, as compared with the Amur route, a fact which would greatly diminish the period and the cost of construction. The Agreement was subsequently rendered complete in every detail by the elaboration of what were termed the Statutes of the Chinese Eastern Railway. These were confirmed by the Tsar on the 4th December in the same year. Although these Statutes (given in Rockhill’s _Treaties and Conventions_) provided that the President of this railway company should be Chinese, the stipulation was purely nominal. The Chinese Eastern Railway, like the Russo-Chinese Bank, was an exclusively Russian undertaking, the raising of the capital required, as well as the construction of the line, being entirely in Russian hands.

Meanwhile the Kaiser, who personally directed the foreign policy of Germany, was forming plans for claiming his share of reward for the triple intervention, and he had, it appears, already approached the Peking Government on this subject, though without any success. What, assuming its existence, was the nature of the understanding arrived at between the Courts of St. Petersburg and Berlin in regard to Far Eastern affairs will probably remain for ever a State secret. In any case, however, it is clear, from his own repeated declarations as to Germany’s need for “a place in the sun,” and from the proceedings of the German Minister at Peking, that he was bent on obtaining a foothold of some sort in China, whence Germany’s future expansion in the Far East might be conveniently developed. His opportunity came in 1897. In the autumn of that year two German missionaries were murdered in the province of Shantung. A few weeks later a German force landed in that province at Kiaochow, one of the two harbours the use of which in time of war Russia had acquired eighteen months before under her secret Treaty with China. M. Gérard in his book above mentioned states that the German Emperor had before the departure of the German ships on this errand informed the Tsar by telegraph of his intentions, and, receiving no reply objecting to the proposed step, took the Tsar’s silence for consent. Germany’s occupation of this strategic position, which had the further advantage of being in a region of the Chinese mainland sufficiently distant from points where other foreign interests were centred to obviate objections on the part of other Powers, and, at the same time, ensure an ample and undisturbed field for German enterprise, was confirmed by a Treaty concluded with China on March 6th, 1898. By this Treaty China granted to Germany a lease for ninety-nine years of the port of Kiaochow and a considerable stretch of “hinterland.” Germany also acquired under it certain rights of railway construction in the neighbourhood of the port.

The author of _Japan: The Rise of a Modern Power_, tells us, on the authority of a statement said to have been made by Prince Henry of Hohenzollern, that the Kaiser’s next step was to invite the Tsar to take Port Arthur and Ta-lien Wan. Whatever truth there may be in the statement attributed to Prince Henry—M. Gérard thinks the suggestion may have been made in the telegram announcing his own intentions—the fact remains that Germany’s abrupt action resulted in an immediate scramble on the part of several European Powers for various portions of Chinese territory. Russia led the way in these undignified proceedings, for which a harsher word might with justice be substituted. Two months after the occupation of Kiaochow by Germany, Russian men-of-war anchored in Port Arthur. Thither they were followed by British cruisers, and for a moment it looked as if history would repeat itself, and that Russia might have to reckon with British interference in her designs. Other counsels, however, prevailed. The British ships were withdrawn, and on March 27th, three weeks after the conclusion of the Kiaochow Agreement, a similar Treaty was signed at Peking by Li Hung Chang and the Russian Chargé d’Affaires. This Treaty, the text of which was not published by the Russian Government, provided for the lease to Russia of Port Arthur, Ta-lien Wan and adjacent waters for a period of twenty-five years, renewable by arrangement at the expiration of the term. It was further agreed that the right to construct the Chinese Eastern Railway across Northern Manchuria, secured by Russia under the secret Railway Agreement of August 27th, 1896, should be extended so as to include the construction of branch lines from a point on that railway to Ta-lien Wan and other places in the Liaotung peninsula. The Treaty also provided for a subsequent definition of the boundaries of the leased area and—a point of some importance in the light of after events—of a neutral strip of territory separating the Chinese and Russian spheres. Port Arthur, moreover, was declared to be a naval port, and as such closed to all vessels save those of the two contracting parties. Subsequently, on May 7th, a supplementary Agreement, signed at St. Petersburg, defined the boundaries of the leased area, and arranged for their delimitation.

It was not long before France, whose services to China at the time of the triple intervention had, as we have seen, already met with recognition in the shape of the prompt settlement of various outstanding questions, obtained, in her turn, a territorial concession of the same nature—though, perhaps, not so important—as those granted to Germany and Russia. By a Convention signed at Peking on May 27th, 1898, China granted to her a ninety-nine years’ lease for the purpose of a naval station and coaling depôt of the Bay of Kwang-chow and adjacent territory in the peninsula of Leichow, together with the right to construct a railway connecting the bay with the peninsula. The area of this concession was in the province of Kwangsi, which adjoins the French territory of Tonkin.

Unlike the three Powers associated in the triple intervention, whose subsequent action justifies the supposition that they regarded themselves as brokers entitled to a commission for services rendered, Great Britain had no special claim on the goodwill of China. Nevertheless, she joined in the scramble for Chinese territory. A Convention, signed at Peking on June 9th, 1898, gave her an extension of territory at Hongkong under lease for a period of ninety-nine years, the reason assigned for the concession being that this extension was necessary for the proper protection and defence of that colony. Three weeks later (July 1st), by another Convention, signed also at Peking, it was agreed that the Chinese Government, “in order to provide Great Britain with a suitable naval harbour and for the protection of British commerce in the neighbouring seas,” should lease to her Weihaiwei and the adjacent waters “for so long a period as Port Arthur shall remain in the occupation of Russia.” The area thus leased comprised the island of Liu-kung, and all other islands in the bay of Weihaiwei.

In defence of Great Britain’s action it may fairly be pleaded that her interests in China, and in the Far East generally, which were more extensive than those of any other Power, with the possible exception of Japan, made it necessary for her Government to take prompt measures to counteract the effect of any proceedings on the part of other Powers which might be prejudicial to those interests. The political situation created in the Far East by the actions of the three Powers associated in the triple intervention was the reverse of reassuring. Russia’s occupation of Port Arthur was in direct contradiction to the grounds of the joint protest against the annexation of the Liaotung peninsula by Japan. Neither with France nor with Russia at that time were our relations what they afterwards became. Between British and Russian policy there was a scarcely veiled antagonism, while the French and ourselves had long been rivals in China, as elsewhere. The concerted action of these two Powers, not to speak of their support by a third, whose exact relation to her associates was dubious, was thus calculated to give rise to apprehensions which would doubtless have been increased had British Ministers then known all that has since come to light. Additional gravity was given to Germany’s sudden appearance on the scene in a new rôle by, to use M. Gérard’s words, her “occupation by force and at a moment of complete peace of a port belonging to the Empire the integrity of whose territory she claimed to have safeguarded against Japan.” Under these circumstances the British Government may well have felt that it was justified in regarding these proceedings as fraught with possibilities of injury to British interests and prestige, and in adopting what in the light of these occurrences might reasonably be held to assume the character of precautionary measures. Such, beyond a doubt, was the general interpretation given by impartial observers to Great Britain’s action in arranging for her occupation of Weihaiwei. It was, as the terms of the Agreement clearly indicated, a direct counter-move to Russia’s occupation of Port Arthur. As such it was welcomed by Japan, who, when the time for the evacuation of Weihaiwei arrived, willingly handed it over to the Power who was shortly to become her ally.