New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-05
dals and purveyor OF malignant falsehoods'
Either that, or give up the source or its III
formation and the name Of lts informant.
THE RRTTISU "BiCkDOWN."

THE BNIIISn B1ihDON'
Has the British Government receded from the
brave stand in China which 1t took fortnight
ago? Answers to that question. alternating
daily from affirmative to negative, are now the
staple OF news from the Far East. when the
affirmative answer was first given there was III
Great Britain n national outburst or consterna-
ton and wrath. In this country there was, 10
say the least. feeling partly of ncreduil'y'
partly Of profound regret. Great Britain was
playing the game not only Of her own inter
ests but Of the interests OF America and OF all
the world save selfish spectators. She had II
perfectly in hand. Success was assured. 1t
seemed impossible that she should deliberately
throw It away. And yet she might be tmd. or
some of her statesmen might; and. as Noltaire
said, 1t is through tmldity TINT States are lost.
There seems however on analysis, scant
ground for believing that she has receded, or
that her present position can properly be de-
scrIbed as n breakdown" Those who call 1t
so do so on the alleged grounds first, that Great
Britain demanded. or at least desired, the open
ing Of Tallen-Wan as & treaty port, and second
that Sir Michael Hicks Beach said there must
be no closed ports IN Chinaa even II Great BIZ
ain had to go to war To open them But the tact
is that both those grounds are Incorrect There
wGs neither demand nor request for the opening
Of Tallen-Wan. All Great Britain did on that
point was 10 name the opening Of Tallcn-Wan
as one of the conditions on which she would
loan China money. China has not yet accepted
the condition, and Great Britain has not yet
loaned the money. Perhaps the condition VIII
not be accepted at all. Then, suppose, the
loan will not be made. But there is no "back-
down" AS to the second point: Sir Michael
Hicks Beach did not say, nor has any respon-
slble British Minister said, that there must be
no closed ports in China. 1t would be folly to
say so, because there are and doubtless long
will be, dozens of closed ports. There are only
twenty-four open ports in the whole Empire.
What Sir Michael did say was this, that the
ports now open must remain open, and the ports
open to one nation must IN accordance with
treaty rights. be open to all. 1t is not known
that there is the slightest backing down from
that position. There Is no talk OF closing any
OF the present treaty ports Almost daily some
british ships visit Port Arthur. though it is not
an open port, to prove that they have as good
right there as Russian ships. There IS no
"backdown" visible
On the contrary there is material strength
cning of the British fleet in Chinese waters and
an evident DECENTRALIZATION anu W
uphold British rights there to the full lndica-
tons are increasing that Germany will finally
decide to make Kiao-Chau an open port. If SO,
she must be reckoned 10 be on the British side:
as indeed there are other strong reasons for
thinking she IT, Great Britain may agree to the
opening of Port Arthur instead Of Talen-Wan,
which for some reasons would be preferable.
Or both may remain closed. rs they now are.
Perhaps China Will cede or lease one or both
of them to Russia, as she has perfect right 10
do: in which case Great Britain will certainly
reoccupy Chusan and make OF II another Hong
Kong ms she will be entitled to do But In none
Of these things will any "backdown" be per-
ceptble. There IS, Of course, no telling what
the British Government may do. But with
Parliament reassembling on Tuesday next, and
with an overwhelming sentiment throughout the
country, strongly expressed and quite irrespec
tive of party in favor OF firm stand for right
and freedom and civilization the chances GER
tainly seem TO be that there VIII be, rs there
has been. according to the emphatic deuials or
Gerald Balfour, the Chief Secretary for Ireland
in his speech AZ Leeds. "backdown."