within two years from April 6, 1847, and that the Queen's subjects should be at liberty "to roam for exercise or amusement" in the neighbourhood of the city, conditionally on their returning the same day. After this the troops were withdrawn to Hongkong. It was a well organised, well conducted little expedition, but it did not commend itself to the Government at home, who were exceedingly apprehensive lest the country should be dragged into another costly war. The official wigging which Sir John Davis received on this occasion led him to turn an even deafer ear than hitherto to the demands constantly forwarded to him from the British community at Canton for protective measures. Apart from this, he seems almost to have been persuaded at the time that the situation really had vastly improved owing to the steps taken in April, 1847, for we find him on November 20th in that year, in a despatch to Lord Palmerston, the then Foreign Secretary, quoting with complacent approval some peaceful sentences from a communication he had received from Keying. The wily old Commissioner had written: "The old habits of the Canton populace are now gradually improving, and we also observe that the (Chinese) guard of the foreign factories proves very effectual so that in this quarter no calamity will take place. If there are one or two loose vagabonds who, without cause, create disturbance I shall order them to be punished. You the honourable envoy will feel no uneasiness on this point. War is disastrous, but peace rich in blessings. If we henceforth on both sides control our merchants and people, we shall ensure a lasting peace and the trade will daily become more flourishing." The Governor of Hongkong, while endorsing these sentiments very heartily, took occasion to refer to the exaggerated statements which had been sent home concerning the position of affairs at Canton by the British merchants resident there. His letter adds another to the many examples which the history of foreign trade with China affords of the danger of optimism. Seventeen days later Sir John Davis received at Hongkong a statement from Mr. Macgregor, the British Consul at Canton to the effect that six young Englishmen, clerks to merchants at Canton, had been murdered while on an up-river excursion. The reports showed that the young men landed near the village of Hwang-chu-ke and were surrounded and attacked by the inhabitants. In the affray which ensued two of the visitors were killed; the others fled but, after a hot pursuit by villagers, they were at last overtaken at a place called Hang-Kaon, where they were overpowered and put to death after a mock trial. Sir John Davis proceeded immediately to Canton and peremptorily demanded from Keying reparation for the outrage which he described as "perhaps the most grievous that England has experienced from the Chinese." Keying promised redress, but as after the lapse of ten days the demands of the British for the punishment of the villagers and the destruction of their villages had not been complied with he fixed a further week as the limit beyond which he could not continue the negotiations. Eventually four of the principals implicated in the murders were executed in the presence of Sir John Davis, who was attended by a strong guard of British soldiers. Sir John Davis considered this very inadequate reparation for a grievous and unprovoked outrage, and continued to press Keying for a more extensive compliance with his earlier demands. Keying temporised after the manner of Chinese officialdom and under various pretexts avoided any further concessions. Meanwhile, the Canton merchants, greatly incensed and alarmed at the outrages, had memorialised Lord Palmerston to give them the protection which they were entitled to under the Treaty. They reminded the Foreign Secretary of their request in 1846 for a warship to be permanently stationed at Canton, and they recalled the reply they received that "wherever British subjects are placed in danger in a situation which is accessible to a British ship of war, thither a British ship of war ought to be and will be ordered." "It was," they proceeded, "with the utmost surprise and regret, therefore, that we beheld that officer shutting his eyes to the danger that menaced us, overlooking all manifestations of the ill-feeling of the people … disregarding the murderous manifestoes of the banded ruffians by whom we are surrounded, and withholding the protection he had been directed to afford." The memorialists asked his lordship whether living, as they did, "among a people who had achieved their last bloody triumph in the slaughter of our countrymen," they did not require "the efficient, constant, and present protection of Her Majesty's forces." Lord Palmerston replied to the memorialists that he did not see how a steam vessel stationed in front of the factories could have prevented the outrage, and expressed his regret that the merchants had not used their influence amongst the young men of their establishments to induce them to desist, at least for a time, from excursions which were known to be attended with personal risk. The controversy arising out of the incident, after continuing for some time, was settled after a fashion by the promulgation by the Chinese of a series of regulations designed to afford greater protection to foreigners at Canton and its vicinity.
(From an engraving in the Print Room, British Museum.)
Less than a twelvemonth after the Fatshan incident another outrage of a
