Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T07:26:29.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Foochow Anti-Missionary Riot-August 30, 1878

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

James E. Kirby Jr.
Get access

Extract

The full-scale Protestant missionary assault made possible by the provisions of the Treaty of Tientsin, which allowed missionaries access to all parts of the interior of China and provided them with the protection of local authorities, both created new problems and intensified old ones existing as a result of unwelcome foreign presence in the land. The difficulties were of such nature as to plague even those nations which had considerable experience and had enjoyed substantial success in colonial affairs. It is the purpose of this paper to examine one incident involving missionary operation in order to illustrate through it the practical burdens which such enterprises could impose upon British and Chinese diplomacy. It is the conviction of this writer that such episodes, although not in themselves crucial, were influential in the shaping of diplomacy.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , August 1966 , pp. 665 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of Christian Missions in China (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1932). P. 359.Google Scholar

2 Varg, Paul A., Missionaries, Chinese and Diplomats (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 31.Google Scholar

3 Great Britain, Foreign Office, Confidential Correspondence, Extract from Report, 1850–1851, Church Missionary Society, Annex 1, XXIII, 7–8. (Hereafter cited as Confidential Correspondence.)

4 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to the Earl of Derby, September 10, 1877, XXIII, 1.Google Scholar

5 Confidential Correspondence, Ho, Governor-General of Fukien, etc. to Consul Sinclair, September 3, 1877, XXIII, 4n.

6 North China Herald, “Feng-shui,” XXII, no. 624 (May 2, 1879), p. 460.Google Scholar

7 Confidential Correspondence, Trial Transcript, XXIII, 184.

8 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, May 23, 1879, XXIII, 170.Google Scholar

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Missionary Wolfe believed this to be the case. Cf. Confidential Correspondence, John Wolfe to Henry Wright, September 15, 1877, Annex no. 2, XXIII, 9Google Scholar. Chester Holcombe, American Minister, contended the real intent was to remove all foreigners from the city. Cf. United States Department of State, Despatches from United States Ministers to China, October 28, 1878, no. 61.

12 Consul Sinclair was serving as interpreter for the consulate in Foochow in 1851 and had been involved in the negotiations to locate the mission on the Woo-shih-shan. He was therefore fully aware of the entire history of the mission in Foochow.

13 Sinclair to Derby, op. cit., p. 2.

14 Ibid.

15 Confidential Correspondence, Ho, Governor-General of Fukien and Chekiang, Acting Tartar-General for Foochow; and Ting, Lieutenant-Governor for Fukien to Consul Sinclair, September 3, 1877, XXIII, 4.Google Scholar

16 Confidential Correspondence, Translation of Anti-foreign inscription on Rock at Woo-shih-shan, XXIII, 20.

17 Sinclair to Derby, op. cit., p. 2.

18 Ibid., p. 3.

19 Confidential Correspondence, Memorandum by Sir Thomas Wade respecting the Missionary Establishments on Wu-shih-shan, Foochow, March 31, 1878, XXIII, 17.Google Scholar

20 Confidential Correspondence, John Wolfe to Henry Wright, Secretary of the Church Mission Board, September 15, 1877, Annex no. 2, XXIII, 9–13.

21 Official notice of the Mission Board's decision was given to the Earl of Derby, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on December 6, 1877.

22 Sinclair flatly denied making any promises but admitted he had expressed his wish to the Chinese officials that the missionaries would accept their offer. Cf. Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Hugh Fraser (British Charge d'Affaires), March 2, 1878, XXIII, 19.Google Scholar

23 Confidential Correspondence, Yeh, Acting Provincial Judge of Fukien to Consul Sinclair, n.d., XXIII, 20.

24 The agreement was made with Stewart because Wolfe was away on an extended trip which would take him to Japan and Stewart was in charge during his absence.

25 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to R. W. Stewart, June 28, 1878, XXIII, 130Google Scholar. The early decision to begin additional building, I believe, indicates the missionaries never intended to give serious consideration to the situation they might create despite repeated warnings from die Consul that it might be dangerous.

26 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Stewart, R. W., July (n.d.), 1878, XXIII, 133.Google Scholar

27 Confidential Correspondence, Stewart, R. W. to Consul Sinclair, August 2, 1878, XXIII, 136.Google Scholar

28 The term was used by both Wolfe and Sinclair to describe the persons who made up the mob. Both were convinced that the crowd had been recruited for the occasion.

29 Confidential Correspondence, Fraser's, M. F. A. report, XXIII, 25.Google Scholar

30 Ibid.

31 Confidential Correspondence, Governor-General Ho to Consul Sinclair, n.d., XXIII, 31. The description of the crowd seems to support that of Sinclair and Wolfe.

32 In the interval between the riot and September 19, four British and one American warship arrived in Foochow. Cf. United States Department of State, Despatches from United States Ministers to China, DeLano, M. M. to Chester Holcombe, October 5, 1878Google Scholar, Despatch no. 61, Inclosure no. I.

33 Confidential Correspondence, Telegram, XXIII, 24.

34 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Fraser, Mr., August 31, 1878, XXIII, 26Google Scholar. The designation “Telegraph property” is due to the fact that the building was originally built by a Danish Telegraph Company.

35 Confidential Correspondence, Translation of Memorandum presented to the Prince of Kung, Septem ber 19, 1878, XXIII, 50.Google Scholar

36 Confidential Correspondence, Fraser to the Marquis of Salisbury, September 20, 1878, XXIII, 44.Google Scholar

37 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Fraser, September 9, 1878, XXIII, 29.Google Scholar

38 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Fraser, October 17, 1878, XXIII, 84.Google Scholar

39 Confidential Correspondence, Yeh Taotai to Consul Sinclair, October 7, 1878, XXIII, 80Google Scholar

40 Confidential Correspondence, Confidential Decree from the Council of State, XXIII, 90–91. The decree is especially interesting since it declared the proposed property exchange an “ingeniously devised stratagem” which had failed only because “Ting-jih-ch'ang had unexpectedly quitted his post before the business was settled. …”

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 North China Herald, “Foo-chow,” XXI, no. 599 (November 14, 1878), p. 474.Google Scholar

44 Confidential Correspondence, Memorandum of Interview With His Excellency the Governor-General Ho, February 8, 1879, XXIII, no.Google Scholar

45 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Hugh Fraser, November 5, 1878, XXIII, 95.Google Scholar

46 Confidential Correspondence, Hugh Fraser to the Marquis of Salisbury, November 21, 1878, XXIII, 94.

47 Confidential Correspondence, Proclamation, XXIII, 161–162.

48 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Sir Thomas Wade, March 24, 1879, XXIII, 114.Google Scholar

49 Ibid.

50 Confidential Correspondence, Statement, Consul Sinclair to Sir Thomas Wade, April 7, 1879, XXIII, 149.Google Scholar

51 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, May 21, 1879, XXIII, 146.Google Scholar

52 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to Consul Sinclair, April 24, 1879, XXIII, 146.Google Scholar

53 Confidential Correspondence, Trial Transcript, XXIII, 177ff.

54 North China Herald, XXIII, no. 634 (July 22, 1879), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

55 Confidential Correspondence, Chow Chang Kung and Others v. Wolfe, Judgment, XXIII, 265.

56 Ibid., 266.

57 Ibid., 267.

58 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, August 28, 1879. XXIII, 273.Google Scholar

59 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, May 22, 1879, XXIII, 168–169.Google Scholar

60 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to Consul Sinclair, August 28, 1879, XXIII, 272.Google Scholar

61 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, May 23, 1879, XXIII, 174.Google Scholar

62 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to Rev. Stewart, R. W., August 2, 1879, XXIII, 271.Google Scholar

63 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, September 4, 1879, XXIII, 273.Google Scholar

64 Confidential Correspondence, Consul Sinclair to R. W. Stewart, September 13, 1879, XXIII, 281Google Scholar. The extension of the date to March 31 was a concession since the mission had received previous notice to be off the Woo-shih-shan property by January 1, 1880.

65 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to Consul Sinclair, May 9, 1879, XXIII, 168.Google Scholar

66 Confidential Correspondence, Sir Thomas Wade to the Marquis of Salisbury, May 28, 1879, XXIII, 256.Google Scholar