Chapter LV: Front Matter (55)

"This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much
interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung
Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant
residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of
his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833,
he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary
addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native
interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received
from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for
Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by
Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the
volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest,
but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years
afterward he attended for the second time the competitive
literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction,
having already passed with much credit the lower examination
in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with
severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in
mind and body. During this state of mental depression and
physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he
had certain strange visions, in which he received commands
from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations
seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led
to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return
to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster.
When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton
River with their wonderful fire-ships, ... it is not
surprising that Hung should have had his attention again
attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long
neglected in his library. ... The writings of Leang A-fah
contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures,
which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the
preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in
his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this
strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his
being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China,
to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his
mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had
espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who
became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher.
These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near
through the country, teaching the people of all classes and
forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts
renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung,
at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after
truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the
instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary,
who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be
inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism.
But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious
treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize
themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers,
and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. ... For a
year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers
that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in
the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with
the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political
character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of
declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits
and pirates which had taken arms against the government in
south-eastern China.

_L. N. Wheeler, The Foreigner in China, chapter 13._

"The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A
vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or
soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his
northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the
rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed
with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The
peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce,
stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its
flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it
gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the
coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an
enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the
perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like
an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung
now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in
1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain
Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the
Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended
simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened
further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted
nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with
the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had
made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been
invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of
the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of
1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had
hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley
of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its
destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued
vitality constantly required new districts of country to
exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into
collision. ... The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost
ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved
Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the
Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry
victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing
condition. ... Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was
threatened."

_A. Forbes, Chinese Gordon, chapter 2._

{425}

"Europe ... has known evil days under the hands of fierce
conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but
its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any
parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China
over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended
his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known
in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) ... had read
Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and
when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of
his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed
in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New
Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the
sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East,
that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the
work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of
the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which
soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the
impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions,
executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to
the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in
Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest
commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his
followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The
Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned
by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its
excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might
have preserved us from active intervention down to the present
time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the
diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the
rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into
direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was
happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their
blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had
been built up."

_C. C. Chesney, Essays in Military Biog., chapter 10_

"The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its
suppression had become necessary in the interests of
civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai
merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been
for some years struggling against its progress. This force,
known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by
Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an
American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the
command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he
was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang,
governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the
British commander-in-chief for the services of an English
officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as
'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He
arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a
mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24
March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four
thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every
nationality and often of doubtful character. By the
indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was
moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of
'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two
years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was
completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre
of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the
Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in
the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had
raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings
the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong,
Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December,
the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was
always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no
other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic
wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led
them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated
with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel
leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders.
Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer
with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards
were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. ...
After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if
Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain
the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his
campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles,
he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the
capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the
campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the
Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the
July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by
the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay
in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote
home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"

_Colonel R. H. Veitch, Charles George Gordon
(Dictionary of Nat. Biog.)_

ALSO IN:
_A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapter 3-8._

_W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 2._

_S. Mossman, General Gordon in China._

_Private Diary of Gen. Gordon in China._

_Mm. Callery and Yvan, History of the Insurrection in China._

CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,
War with England and France.
Bombardment and capture of Canton.
The Allies in Pekin.
Their destruction of the Summer Palace.
Terms of peace.

The speech from the throne at the opening of the English
Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of
violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of
treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton,
and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it
necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse
to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged
offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their
single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a
small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is
taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of
the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese
authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge
of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They
took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in
charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners
to be a British vessel.
{426}
Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the
Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his
demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of
1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any
right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on
board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to
require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the
English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that
the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right
whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly
stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but
only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences
the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes,
however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of
the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at
Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in
the business. Sir John Bowring ... ordered the Chinese
authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,'
and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their
arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever
be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight
hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.
The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and
undertook to promise that for the future great care should be
taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by
Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the
particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as
was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel,
and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly
Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton
bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour
commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military
operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh
retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of
every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable
sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought
forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively
condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British
authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if
only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord
Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter
illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The
House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority
of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a
similar motion in the House of Commons. ... Mr. Cobden had
probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the
support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of
censure was carried by 263 votes against 247--a majority of
16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the
Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the
country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the
ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright,
Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading
opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord
Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled
strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in
1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The
operations against China had been virtually suspended ... when
the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the
cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing
against China on account of the murder of some missionaries,
for which redress had been asked in vain. There was,
therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857],
and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh
himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for
and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at
last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known
by his enormous fatness. ... He was put on board an English
man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died
early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him
he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official.
The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros,
succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of
the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the
Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and
China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to
be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom
of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile
vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French
subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was
further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be
applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation
in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a
lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in
fact exactly a year. ... The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had
been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause
providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin
within a year from the date of the signature, which took place
in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,
Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce
was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and
thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.
Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary ... impressed
upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the
capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same
time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China,
to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the
mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands
on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner
of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about
100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not
stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance
westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a
canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its
junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and
about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho
was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce
and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with
Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort
them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and
inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from
Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some
delay or compromise.
{427}
Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things
predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the
Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He
called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels.
When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened
fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and
precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately
disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope
attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete
failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the
commander of the French vessel which had contributed a
contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a
passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was
over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the
Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of
perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river
openly and even ostentatiously. ... It will be easily imagined
that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in
general made up their minds at once that the matter could not
be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must
be enforced. ... Before the whole question came to be
discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the
Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments
determined that the men who had made the treaty of
Tien-tsin--Lord Elgin and Baron Gros--should be sent back to
insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to
the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de
Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of
France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely,
but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces
as those commanded by the English and French generals. The
allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied
Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government
endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any
manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies
and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at
last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten
or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations
took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch,
some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the
'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were
treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of
truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr.
Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards
released, after having been treated with much cruelty and
indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible
ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate
until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies
were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had
their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese
acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies
entered the city, and the English and French flags were
hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after
entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the
captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be
burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese
authorities generally with some sense of the danger of
treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the
destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles.
Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes,
lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the
vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities,
archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese
taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been
accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding
scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted
one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the
whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was
raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such
was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions
were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial
palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and
unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did
not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was
because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been
made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese
Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in
all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who
had nothing to do with the murders. ... It is somewhat
singular that so many persons should have been roused to
indignation by the destruction of a building who took with
perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied
powers now of course had it all their own way. England
established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the
Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and
a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the
murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and
to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku
forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war
was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a
city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the
whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."

_J. McCarthy, Short History of our own Time, chapter 12, 15,
17 (chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work)._

ALSO IN:
_L. Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission,
volume 1._

_H. B. Loch, Personal Narrative._

_S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 25 (volume 2)._

_Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 3._

CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.
Treaty with the United States.
The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.

"The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the
new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain,
supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856.
President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to
watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator
and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was
sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong
Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He
at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the
English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion
of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and
obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from
bombardment.
{428}
He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his
government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June
18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant
reference to the posture of the United States in relation to
the war then in progress, as well as to any which might
thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there
have always been, peace and friendship between the United
States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their
people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each
other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement
between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or
oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices,
on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable
arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly
feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be
interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the
difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the
previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating
the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and
their vessels to trade, it continues in the following
language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine
and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to
be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under
the American flag violating this provision shall, with her
cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government;
and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any
contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt
with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any
countenance or protection from that of the United States; and
the United States will take measures to prevent their flag
from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover
for the violation of the laws of the empire.'... The
development of the foreign trade with China during the brief
time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very
great. ... The American government has been represented most
of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the
lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the
policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief
treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise
and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign
nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the
age. ... Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years,
determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America.
The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and
foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to
dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he
was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at
which were present many of the leading officers of the
government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude
for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested
counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this
time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with
foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending
to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head.
They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends
among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days
after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise,
the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the
Western powers. ... Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on
the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the
principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a
Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which
indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the
empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation,
and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as
Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate
positions. ... It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco,
where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and
Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May,
1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the
American capital. No American statesman was so capable and
disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary
of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind
had long apprehended the great features of the policy which
American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the
Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United
States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this
country with the representative of the Chinese government. The
treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of
Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have
already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the
empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized
nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent
domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and
property therein. It takes the first step toward the
appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports--a measure
promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures
exemption from all disability or persecution on account of
religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of
voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie
traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in
either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation.
It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and
colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain
schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the
Chinese government to control its own whole interior
arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal
improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to
afford aid toward their construction by designating and
authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the
expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves
the question of naturalization in either country an open one.
... It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of
this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was
received at first very coldly, and it was some months before
proper attention could be secured from the government to its
objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented
to the queen at Windsor Castle. ... What heart is there that
will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by
the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other
European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the
diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and
all other lands of the West!"

_W. Speer, The Oldest and the Newest Empire, ch, 14._

ALSO IN:
_Treaties and Conventions between the
U. S. and other Powers (1889), page 159 and 179._

{429}

CHINA: A. D. 1884-1885.
War with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

CHINA: A. D. 1892.
Exclusion of Chinese from the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CHINA: A. D. 1893.
The future of the Chinese.
A speculation.

"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can
fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and
the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor
Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the
race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view.
On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from
Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating
the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in
Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for
sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of
Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very
formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia.
Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now
tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up
and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried
into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished
with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case
the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still
claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah,
and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious
discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the
expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the
world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no
European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was
so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of
office. ... 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in
this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only
people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised
territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of
our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how
the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the
population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best
observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own
against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and
Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the
small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of
all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to
governments and employers by their power of steady industry;
and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women
of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet
not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have
retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have
mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish
in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the
government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration;
English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in
their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang
that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre;
and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil
of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the
emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing.
... Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not
work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have
to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives
who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will
be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo
is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled
like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000.
... In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as
sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who
organise where they can in a way that precludes competition,
are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not
destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the
position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in
Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its
inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world,
and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly
Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger
part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands?
or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or
diplomacy, into the possession of China? ... There are those
who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the
Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without
assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be
realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a
people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural
resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and
spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."

_C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character,
pages 45-51._

----------CHINA: End----------

CHINANTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

CHINOOK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.

CHIOGGIA, The War of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

CHIOS.

The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in
modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's
birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait
only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of
Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at
the present day. The island was an important member of the
Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from
which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in
consequence.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CHIOS: B. C. 413.
Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

CHIOS: A. D. 1346.
Taken by the Genoese.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

CHIOS: A. D. 1681.
Blockade and attack by the French.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

CHIOS: A. D. 1770.
Temporary possession by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CHIOS: A. D. 1822.
Turkish massacre of Christians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------CHIOS: End----------

CHIPPEWA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{430}

CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
AND OJIBWAS.

CHIPPEWYANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

CHITON, The.

"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of
cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through
a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being
fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or
clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was
completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of
which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched
together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon
or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as
required by pulling it through this girdle. ... Frequently
sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or
continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. ... The
short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children
on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both
shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free
citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton
with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the
chest remaining quite uncovered. ... It appears clearly that
the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open
and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed
double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of
cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on
both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as
in a cylinder."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 41._

"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian
maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and
without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large
clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This
sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to
the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both
sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they
walked, entirely exposed their limbs. ... The married women,
however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,'
but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to
have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."

_J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 3, chapter 6._

CHITTIM.

See KITTIM.

CHIVALRY.

"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the
French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of
soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that
general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and
modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present
article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in
modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood,
established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages,
and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed.
Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their
effects may still be traced in European manners; and,
excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction
of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced
such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and
moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of
chivalry. ... From the time that cavalry becomes used in war,
the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in
all countries, into a person of superior importance to the
mere foot-soldier. ... In various military nations, therefore,
we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the
state. ... But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed
to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and
imposing character. They were not merely respected on account
of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by
a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were
ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and
governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the
military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated
with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to
assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long
and severe probation, during which they practised, as
acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry.
Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble
youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at
least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and
the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time
in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of
eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in
future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of
humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to
display those of a higher order. ... In the general and
abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body
of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were
invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with
reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions
and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either
original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was
in the singular tenets of Chivalry,--in the exalted,
enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with
its duties,--in the singular balance which its institutions
offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose,
that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so
worthy of our attention. ... The education of the future
knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after
the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too
tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too
effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of
chivalry. ... To counteract these habits of indulgence, the
first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page.
The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth
year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some
baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious
parent as that which had the best reputation for good order
and discipline. ... When advancing age and experience in the
use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and
dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the
second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire,
or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much
contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from
its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the
shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to
engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more
remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the
knight being under the especial care of the squire.
{431}
Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to
the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and
to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times,
became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the
appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means
anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms.
There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning
of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a
title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in
1579. ... In actual war the page was not expected to render
much service, but that of the squire was important and
indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of
the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal
fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led
in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney.
The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an
armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his
cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which
the various pieces were united to each other. ... In the
actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the
banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a
knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was
at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve
him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners
they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself
fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. ... A
youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier,
and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until
he was one-and-twenty. ... Knighthood was, in its origin, an
order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature;
arising ... from the customs of the free tribes of Germany
[see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the
sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could
confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory
noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest
potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the
honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose
achievements had dignified the period. ... Though no positive
regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of
the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign
princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the
latter the power of conferring knighthood. ... Knights were
usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory
had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of
some solemn warning or grand festival. ... The spirit of
chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and
moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually
introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally
great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of
thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end
of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed
forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may
be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or
general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which
actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But
its most brilliant period was during the wars between France
and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that
the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered
by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity
for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer
terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently
makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and
English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons
to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain
and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every
kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a
greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the
emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the
Christians. But even during this splendid period, various
causes were silently operating the future extinction of the
flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important
discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and
was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its
highest glory. ... Another change, of vital importance, arose
from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at
arms in France, constituted ... expressly as a sort of
standing army. ... A more fatal cause had, however, been for
some time operating in England, as well as France, for the
destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York
and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of
the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was
utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and
gentleness, proper to chivalry. ... The civil wars not only
operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting
and destroying the particular class of society from which its
votaries were drawn."

_Sir W. Scott, Essay on Chivalry._

ALSO IN: G
_P. R. James, History of Chivalry._

_H. Hallam, State of Europe during the Middle
Ages, chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3)._

_F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization in France, 6th lecture,
2d course (volume 4)._

_C. Mills, History of Chivalry._

_H. Stebbing, History of Chivalry and the Crusades._

_L. Gautier, Chivalry._

_K. H. Digby, The Broadstone of Honour._

_Dr. Doran, Knights and their Days._

See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.

CHLAMYS, The.

"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] ... was an oblong
piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends
being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp;
the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept
straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was
principally used by travellers and soldiers."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 42._

CHOCIM.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.
Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.
Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.
Great defeat of the Turks.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739.
Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.

See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769.
Taken by the Russians.
Defeat of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

{432}

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790.
Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

----------CHOCZIM: End----------

CHOLET, Battles of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHOLULA: Pyramids at.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CHOLULA: A. D. 1519.
The Massacre at.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).

----------CHOLULA: End----------

CHONTALS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CHORASMIA.

See KHUAREZM.

CHOREGIA.

See LITURGIES.

CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CHOTYN.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOUANS.--CHOUANNERIE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

CHOUT.
The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

CHOWANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.