No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Taiwan and the Limits of British Power, 1868
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Extract
When the treaty system between the western powers and China was firmly established in 1860, a new ‘cooperative’ approach emerged in Great Britain's commercial and diplomatic transactions. British authorities believed that a conciliatory manner would bring greater gain in fostering British commercial and developmental interests in China rather than aggressive demands. The treaty system, they envisioned, would bring stability and reason to what had been an arbitrary and often combative relationship. After nearly a decade of trial under the new system, two disturbing incidents occurred on Taiwan which severely tested the treaty system and the cooperative policy and revealed a limitation of Britain's ability to control the use of force and maintain adherence to established policy by practitioners in the field. Moreover, an early consideration of British predominance on Taiwan came to an end.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988
References
1 LeGendre, Charles W., U.S. Consul at Amoy, investigated the destruction of the American barque Rover on Taiwan's southwest coast and received an agreement from the mou-tan tribe to help future survivors of distressed ships. For an account of this episode,Google Scholar see Gordon, Leonard, ‘Early American Relations with Formosa, 1849–1870,’ The Historian, XIX (05 1957), 278–87.Google Scholar
2 Contemporary names are used to identify locations on Taiwan, but names by which they were known in the 1860s appear in parenthesis.
3 T'ai-wan chih chang-nao (The camphor of Taiwan) (Taipei: Bank of Taiwan, Economic Research Office, 1952), 6. Camphor was found in various centers in northern, central, and southern mountainous regions of Taiwan, particularly in the north. For a full discussion of the development and location of these camphor centers, seeGoogle ScholarMitchell, Charles A., Camphor in Japan and Formosa (London: printed at the Chiswick Press for Private Circulation, 1900).Google Scholar
4 Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Sessional Papers, ‘Correspondence Respecting the Attack on British Protestant Missionaries at Yang-chow-foo, 08, 1868,’ China, no. 2 (1869), LXIV, 72;Google ScholarPickering, W. A.Pioneering in Formosa (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1898), 203, speaks of rivalry between clan leaders for the comphor sales to foreign merchants as the cause of the siezure.Google Scholar
5 National Archives, U. S. Department of State Records [DSR], Consular Letters [CL], Amoy, V., Legendre, W. Charles, U.S. Consul at Amoy, to Tseny Hsien-et. Taotai of Amoy, Oct. 3, 1868.Google Scholar
6 British Sessional Papers, ‘Correspondence Respecting Missionary Disturbances at Che-foo, and Taiwan (Formosa), ’, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 105.
7 Campbell, Rev. William, Handbook of the English Presbyterian Mission in South Formosa (Hastings: F, J. Parsons), 1910, XIII.Google Scholar
8 British Sessional Paper, China, no. 2 (1869), LXIV, 69–70.Google Scholar
9 British Sessional Paper, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 108.Google Scholar
10 Great Britain, Parliament, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (London: Cornelius Buck), 1869, 3rd Series (1869), vol. 195, 131–2.Google Scholar
11 Ibid., 132–3.
12 British Sessional Papers, ‘Correspondence Respecting Outrage on British Merchants at Banca in Formosa,’ China, no. 6 (1869), LXIV, 182–3.Google Scholar
13 Ibid., 187.
14 DSR, Diplomatic Dispatches [DD], China XXV, LeGendre, Charles W. to Williams, S. Wells, Chargé d'affaires at Peking, Nov. 3, 1868.Google Scholar
15 The only reason which LeGendre later gave for his refusal to assist Tseng Hsien-te was that Tseng's mission was merely to investigate ‘the errors and wrongs of the local government.’ Shortly afterwards, he also refused a request from the British Acting Consul at Anping, John Gibson, to support him in demanding the dismissal of the entire Taiwan local government. Although LeGendre chose to remain aloof from this encounter with the Chinese, he kept himself fully informed of the proceedings. DSR, DD, China, XXV, LeGendre, Charles W. to Browne, J. Ross, U.S. Minister to China, Dec. 14, 1868; LeGendre to John Gibson, British Acting Consul at Anping, Nov. 14, 1868.Google Scholar
16 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 112–14.Google Scholar
17 Gibson earlier thought that the threat of force would be sufficient. Writing to Minister Alcock on the murder of a British commercial agent at Tainan, he said ‘the only way to remedy this state of things is for the Consul to have physical force at his back, not to fight, but simply as a guarantee that the Chinese officials cannot assault, illtreat, or murder, a British subject.’ Great Britian [GB], Public Record Office [PRO], F.O. 228/459, Takow [Ta-kou], John Gibson, Acting Consul, to Sir Rutherford Alcock, British Minister to Peking, July 10, 1868.
18 Although not authorized to order naval action against a Chinese port on Taiwan, Gibson believed he was justified in doing so to protect British lives and property and that the local Chinese authorities were unreliable in fulfilling their treaty obligations. GB, PRO, F.O. 228/459, Gibson, John to SirAlcock, Rutherford, Aug. 22, 1868.Google Scholar
19 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), 112–14.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., 116.
21 Ch'ing-tai ch'ou-pan i-wu-shih-mo (Complete management of barbarian affairs of the Ch'ing dynasty) [IWSM] (Peiping: Palace Museum, 1930), T'ung-chih [TC], chuan 62, 29b–33b.Google Scholar
22 IWSM, TC, chuan 63, 11–12.
23 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 114–16, 117–20.Google Scholar
24 Ibid., 151–2, contains the Proclamation by Tseng Hsien-te, dated Dec. 10, 1868. See IWSM, TC, chuan 62, 29b–33b, for the Chinese account. The Emperor instructed the Tsungli Yamen to tell the British Minister in Peking to withdraw Gibson and Gurdon from Taiwan.
25 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 141.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., 141–2.
27 Ibid., 156–7.
28 Ibid., 110.
GB, PRO, F.O. 17/541, Romaine, W. G., Admiralty, to E. Hammond, Foreign Office, Feb. 17, 1869.Google Scholar
29 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 138.Google ScholarConvinced of the propriety of Gurdon's action, the Admiralty ‘promoted Lieut. Gurdon for the gallantry displayed by him on the occasion.’ GB, PRO, F.O. 17/543, Lushington, Vernon, Admiralty, to E. Hammond, Foreign Office, July 1, 1869.Google Scholar
30 British Sessional Papers, China, no. 3 (1869), LXIV, 125.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., 126.
Pelcovits, Nathan A., Old China Hands and the Foreign Office (New York: King's Crown Press, 1948), 58.Google Scholar
32 GB, PRO, F.O. 17/495, Foreign Office to SirAlcock, Rutherford, Dec. 30, 1868; F.O. 17/520, Rutherford Sir Alcock, Circular no. 2, to Consuls, March 4, 1869.Google Scholar
33 DSR, DD, China, XXVI, SirAlcock, Rutherford to Browne, J. Ross, June 5, 1869.Google Scholar
34 GB, PRO, F.O. 17/522, SirAlcock, Rutherford to Clarendon, Lord, June 11, 1869.Google Scholar