even under torture. Even as late as September he still had but a small list of proved participants in the riot. The difficulty of securing evidence and convictions against guilty parties in mobs, as, for example, in the United States, enables us to understand, and to some extent sympathise with Tsêng in his troubles. On the other hand, the French were not content to sit down and await the slow and uncertain outcome of such investigations. There were at least three men who could be held accountable for negligence if not culpability, the prefect and magistrate of T'ientsin, who were charged with keeping the peace in the city, and the t'ituh or general of the province, Ch'eng Kuo-jui. The French held that these men, knowing of the rumors that were abroad and of the placards that bore horrible accusations against the missionaries, should have taken due precautions to maintain order.
On July 19 the French chargé demanded (and this was confirmed by a dispatch the following day) that capital punishment be inflicted on these three men, with a threat of naval action unless the demand was complied with. Tsêng and Ts'ung Hou consulted together and decided that, in spite of their opinion that these men were in no way deserving of such a punishment, the French appeared to be so thoroughly in earnest that the welfare of the whole country rendered it necessary for China to yield to their demand. Accordingly they recommended handing over the prefect and magistrate to the Board of Punishments; but in view of the t'ituh's slight connection with the case they recommended that negotiations regarding him be transferred to Peking, where that officer was at the moment.[1] This memorial marks the turning point in the negotiations. Tsêng felt that he had made a serious mistake in adopting the recommenda-
- ↑ Dispatches, XXIX, 42.
