laitimes

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

Author: Ma Junjie

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

On July 25, 1894, the Japan Navy, without declaring war, attacked a Chinese warship in the waters off Toshima, Korea, captured the "Caojiang" transport ship, sank the "Gaosheng" troop transport, and killed more than 870 Qing soldiers.

On July 25, 1894, the three ships of the Japan Combined Fleet "Yoshino", "Naniwa" and "Akitsuzu" raided the two ships of the Beiyang Navy, "Jiyuan" and "Guangyi", provoking the Battle of Toshima, thus launching the Sino-Japanese Sino-Japanese War. In this naval battle of asymmetrical strength, the Japan warships sank the steamer "Gao Sheng" hired by the Qing government from the United Kingdom India Shina Steamship Company, resulting in the "Gao Sheng" incident, which not only led to the loss of one British steamer, but more seriously caused the sacrifice of more than 800 Qing soldiers. Japan's undeclared war and launching an attack on the ships of a third country is a flagrant violation of public international law, which will inevitably lead to solemn representations between China and Britain and Japan. However, because China and Japan were already in a state of war, especially because the Western powers had the common purpose of plundering China, and the Qing government was always in a weak state in the diplomatic structure, Britain and Japan completely ignored the Qing government, went from disputes to compromises, and finally reached an agreement on the premise of jointly betraying China's interests, pushing the Chinese side of the victim country into an even more painful abyss. The reaction of China and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident and the process of negotiation are rare in previous research results, and the author has tried to systematically sort out them without being superficial, and put forward his personal views in order to make up for the shortcomings in this regard to a certain extent.

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

The cruiser Jiyuan of the Beiyang Fleet

1

After receiving Li Hongzhang's report on the morning of 27 July, the Military Aircraft Department reacted strongly and immediately sent a message to the emperor: "According to Li Hongzhang's telegram, the Japanese soldiers have attacked our warship in Asan and sunk a British ship. And the provocation starts from the other, and all countries know it, and the decisive battle from now on is especially justifiable. It is now planned to first withdraw Wang Fengzao's order to return to China, and then announce to various countries with Japan's various unreasonable feelings, and then ask for a clear decree to declare China and foreign countries. As for all matters concerning the arrangement of the army, it is proposed to send a letter to Li Hongzhang to handle it properly. Compared with the Military Aircraft Department, Prime Minister Yamen was much calmer, and sent a telegram to Li Hongzhang that night to discuss how to deal with it. The telegram said: "The matter has been broken by provoking and destroying the British ship. The British envoy has telegraphed to his country, and he has discussed the situation of the Chinese and Japanese countries, and he will not support the Japanese for a long time. However, it is advisable to be cautious at the beginning, because he intends to destroy our military ships, and he must gather and be well prepared, and he must not scatter the ship alone, which will lead to cunning. He also asked Li Hongzhang whether Wang Fengzao, the minister to Japan, would withdraw immediately, or would he withdraw after the announcement was made to other countries? The telegram continued: "The note to the States must be processed in due course, and this Department has now prepared it. I am so confident that I can describe it in detail. How it should be worded, in order to carve the secret, I hope that you will see the details of this department, and issue it at the discretion of the public. After receiving the telegram, Li Hongzhang replied the next morning: "If you start a war first, you should announce it to all countries, so that everyone knows that the provocation is not self-starting." It may be advisable to tell the details of the case according to the facts, and the draft of the Jun Department must be thorough. …… The envoy should be withdrawn, and the envoy and the consuls in Beijing should be ordered to leave by themselves. The local goods depend on Chinese sales, and trade with Japan should be suspended at all customs." On the same day, Li Hongzhang also sent telegrams to Gong Zhaoyu, minister to Britain, and Wang Fengzao, minister to Japan, informing them of the decision to withdraw the Japanese envoy.

Judging from the reaction of the Qing Government and Li Hongzhang, although the Chinese side has shown strong dissatisfaction, the way to deal with the "Gao Sheng" incident is to withdraw its envoy to Japan except to suspend trade with Japan, and there is no more effective countermeasure. Especially militarily, Li Hongzhang did not take any further action except for letting Ding Ruchang lead the fleet to strengthen the cruise. The reason why he is so "calm" and "calm" is because he has renewed hope for the intervention of the United Kingdom government, and he believes that this time Japan has directly harmed United Kingdom's interests, and the United Kingdom government will never rest on its laurels. So, can Li Hongzhang's expectations become a reality?

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

The cruiser Yoshino, which became famous for the Sino-Japanese War

2

Although United Kingdom's mediation of the conflict between China and Japan was once cold because of the agreement reached between Britain and Japan, it was never interrupted, after all, it involved United Kingdom's interests in the Far East. On the very day that the Battle of Toshima broke out, Minister Ogne went to Premier Yamen to communicate on the matter of mediation, declaring that Japan did not heed the advice to withdraw its troops and that "our government is very displeased and has telegraphed Japan." He also said that in order to prevent "your country from hurting its dignity," in addition to Britain and Russia, it also invited Germany, France, and Italy to "handle this matter together, and to force Japan to reason and not dare to disobey it; at this time, he always spoke Japan's side." I will immediately send a telegram to my government today, urging Japan to send a message to Xishan to ask Germany to send back to Beijing, so that all the governments of the telegram will go to the Japan government together. This is a good opportunity, and it is rare for the five countries to work together to help your country. At the time of these words, it was clear that Eugene was unaware that the Battle of Toshima had taken place.

On the afternoon of 26 July, Prince Yi Xuan, who was in charge of Prime Minister Yamen, sent Zhang Jingshuwen and Yu Zhongying to the United Kingdom Legation to inform them of the news that Japan had besieged the Korean royal palace and held the Korean king hostage on 23 July, expressing Prime Minister Yamen's intention to "immediately announce the disappointment of all countries with the theory of provocation and disagreement." However, Eugene disagreed, saying: "I have not heard of the detention of the king of Han, and it seems that the situation reported by the minister of Beiyang is relatively light." It would be a pity if China were to send a note to other countries immediately, and I would like to delay it for a few days, that is, China can make arrangements within a few days. Today, I am still discussing with the ministers of various countries that I would like to ask the Chinese troops to retreat to Pyongyang and the Japan troops to Pusan. If Japan does not obey, no country can agree. Or ask your Yamen to send a telegram to the Minister of Beiyang and the Minister of Russia to formulate a method immediately. On the afternoon of the 27th, Ogne finally learned the news of the sinking of the "Gao Sheng" from the consul in Tianjin, and expressed his indignation, and he pointed out in a telegram to United Kingdom Foreign Secretary J.W. Kinberly: "Japan's actions are completely illegal and unreasonable, because the Gao Sheng is defenseless and carries a thousand people, and Japan sinks it, which is an arrogant, brutal and shameless act in any case." ”

United Kingdom's diplomats and admirals in the Far East also expressed strong emotions about Japan's actions. The United Kingdom Vice-Consul in Incheon, Korea, was the first to learn of Japan's atrocities from the survivors of the "Gao Sheng" and wrote to United Kingdom Minister to China Ogne on 28 July, arguing that the "Gao Sheng" request to return to the anchorage was entirely justified, and that since Japan had not declared war on China or sent any note, even if the ship was flying the flag of China rather than United Kingdom at the time, the request for return to China was still legitimate. Referring to the massacre of Chinese soldiers by Japanese soldiers after the sinking of the "Gao Sheng", he said angrily, "The cruelty of the Japanese in shelling defenseless anchored merchant ships and shooting at people struggling to survive in the water is unimaginable." On July 30, the United Kingdom Consul General in Shanghai, Han Neng, personally went to the Consulate General of Japan to lodge a strong protest with the Japanese side. After Vice Admiral Philistine, commander of the United Kingdom Far East Fleet, learned of the sinking of the "Gao Sheng," he immediately sent the British ship "Shooter" to deliver a letter to the commander of the Japan Combined Fleet, Ito Sukehiro, which pointed out: "The 'Gao Sheng' was legally normally engaged in transporting Qing officers and soldiers on United Kingdom steamers without the captain receiving news of the declaration of war and without receiving any order not to carry out this task." He was asked, "Did the Naniwa act on the orders of the commander, or did it ask for the commander's consent?" Filimante also sent a sternly worded telegram to the Ministry of the Navy of Japan, demanding an explanation of the incident from Japan. He said that if there is a war between China and Japan, they should send a note to the other countries in advance, and then the countries will not allow the steamers to carry Chinese soldiers and horses in accordance with the public law of all countries. Japan has not sent a note to United Kingdom today, so United Kingdom's "Gao Sheng" steamship should carry Chinese soldiers and horses, and there is not the slightest reason for it. The Japanese soldiers fired artillery bombardment for no reason, so that the whole ship was destroyed, and all the officers on board were killed tragically. Clearly seeing that there is a United Kingdom flag, and being unscrupulous to do so, will it be difficult for China? Or is it difficult for the United Kingdom? Please tell me clearly. He also called the United Kingdom Admiralty recommending that the British demand the immediate removal and arrest of the captain of the Naniwa and the senior officials who had commanded the warship involved in the incident during negotiations between the two governments. If the Japanese side does not comply, the United Kingdom Navy should authorize retaliation. Above all, something should be done to make up for the insult to the British flag. In the light of such barbaric massacres, belligerents should also be urged to be humane in the course of war.

After learning the news of the sinking of the "Gao Sheng", the India Shina Steamship Company, to which the "Gao Sheng" belonged, could not calm the anger in patience, and immediately instructed Chairman Ma Kanzhu and Secretary Cui Ne to send a letter to United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Kimberly, emphatically pointing out: "As the owner of the United Kingdom transport ship Gao Sheng, I would like to report to you. We received a call today from the company's agents, Mr. Jardine and Mr. Matheson, and the Shanghai Colonial Department, that the Gaosheng was leased by China to transport troops to North Korea and was sunk by a Japan torpedo off the coast of Korea. All but 40 Chinese were rescued, and all of them were killed on board. …… We protest against the unfriendly actions of the Japan authorities, and ask you to intervene and take swift measures, because a ship flying the flag of United Kingdom (on which we do not have exact information) was attacked and destroyed without warning of surrender when the two warring parties had not declared war and the situation remained peaceful. This is intolerable. …… We request you to inform the Government of Japan of this grave and inexcusable act of brutality as soon as we have more precise information and to hold them accountable for casualties and property damage. Jardine Matheson in Shanghai made a stronger statement, and its agents, Jardine and Matheson, told Ogne: "We believe that this is an act of piracy on the high seas, and we ask you to report this atrocity against the United Kingdom flag to the government in your capacity as United Kingdom minister, and trust that they will demand compensation as soon as they learn of the facts." …… No amount of money can be paid to save the lives of these unfortunate United Kingdom and Chinese. However, we still strongly believe that the Government of Japan should be compelled to compensate its bereaved families for the loss of their lives, in an amount sufficient to make the aggressor feel very heavy. ”

In United Kingdom, media opinion strongly condemned Japan's brutal acts, and it was generally believed that the main cause of the Sino-Japanese war was Japan's ambition, and Japan's attack on the "Gao Sheng" trampled on human norms and the United Kingdom flag. A report in the North China Jiebao also said: "What has happened in recent days has exposed the true nature of Japan, and they can no longer pretend to be civilized." People had previously dealt with them and had no faith in their professed civilization, but now, they have openly shown themselves to be savages. This massacre, or piracy, carried out by Japan warships, confirms any harsh accusations against them. Other newspapers in United Kingdom have also repeatedly suggested that the government demand compensation from Japan for the brutality imposed on the United Kingdom flag.

The reactions and demands from all sides eventually converge on the United Kingdom Foreign Office, in which case it must make an official statement on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. However, before that, the United Kingdom Foreign Office did not take seriously the strong reaction and strong demands from all sides, but focused its attention on economic compensation in the first place. On July 31, United Kingdom Deputy Foreign Secretary Berry asked in a letter to the Department of Justice on behalf of the Foreign Office: "Does the United Kingdom Government have the right to claim compensation from Japan?" Obviously, the United Kingdom Foreign Office at this time did not want to turn the "Gao Sheng" incident into a political incident or a military dispute, as Li Hongzhang hoped, but hoped to solve the problem through economic compensation. On August 1, China and Japan declared war on each other, and the United Kingdom Foreign Office immediately realized the reality that United Kingdom's interests in China would be threatened, and Bertty informed the Ministry of Commerce on the same day: "The Consul General in Shanghai reported that the Chinese Government intended to blockade the Huangpu River as soon as war was declared, and the mainland Government immediately sought Japan's understanding not to take military action against Shanghai and its vicinity." On August 2, the Department of Justice called Kimberley to give an official response to the questions posed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "We believe that the United Kingdom Government has the right to demand full compensation from the Government of Japan for the sinking ship and the resulting loss of life and property of United Kingdom citizens." On August 3, Kimberly informed Shuzo Aoki, the Japanese minister to Britain: "On the evening of the 31st of last month and the 2nd of this month, I received your letters in time regarding the sinking of the Takasheng by the Japan Navy. The Government of United Kingdom has consulted with the Magistrates on the communications referred to in the communication. Finally, it is believed that the Japanese Government must be fully responsible for all losses to the lives and property of United Kingdom citizens as a result of the actions of the Japanese Navy. I note with satisfaction that the Government of Japan has expressed its willingness to provide adequate compensation for the mistakes of its commanders. This shows the United Kingdom's eagerness to reach a compromise with Japan.

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

Li Hongzhang's Huai Army has always liked to rely on foreign ships for transportation

3

Before the United Kingdom government offered financial compensation, there was a round of intense conspiracy and planning in Japan due to the "Takasho" incident. On 26 July, the day after the Battle of Toshima, the captain of the Naniwa ship, Heihachiro Togo, reported to the commander of the Japan Combined Fleet, Yuhiro Ito, about the sinking of the Takasho, saying:

"

At 8:30 a.m. on July 25, Meiji 27, he met the "Gosung" off the coast of Jemulpo, judged it to be a strange ship, fired two cannons, berthed it, and caused it to anchor. The ship immediately dropped anchor. Then, according to the commander's order to take him to the base area, the detachment leader was again sent to the captain to inquire inside the ship. The ship was hired by the Qing people, with more than 1,100 Qing soldiers and weapons, and was on its way to Asan. When it was said that the ship should be accompanied by his own ship, the captain replied: "I have no other help but to obey the orders of the Honorable Ones." So, the order was immediately given to drop anchor. Because the ship sent a signal that it wanted to send a dinghy, the ship immediately sent the dinghy. Send an officer to talk to the captain of the "Gao Sheng": "Why do you need a dinghy?" The ship said: "The Qing soldiers did not allow me to follow your ship, and advocated returning to Dagu." For they are equal to foreign ships, and when they depart from their own country, they are not notified of the belligerency. The officer replied: "When we return to the ship, we can give the order." So he returned to the ship. Knowing that the captain and below were under duress from the Qing people, the ship immediately ordered him to abandon the ship by signal. The merchant ship sent a signal to send a dinghy, and I signaled that the other dinghy could come, and the merchant ship replied that we would not be allowed. Therefore, it is determined that the Qing soldiers coerced the captain to refuse my order. Raise a red flag before the foremast and signal it to abandon the vessel immediately. At this point, it was decided to destroy it. It was sunk at half past one in the afternoon. In a moment, two small boats sent to attack the Qing soldiers returned to the ship.

"

Since this report was submitted by Heihachiro Togo to his boss, Yuhiro Ito, to tell the truth, the details reflected are basically in line with the facts. When the contents of such a report were learned by Japan's Foreign Minister Mutsu Munemitsu, the old fox who had been on the diplomatic scene immediately realized the seriousness of the problem, and he feared that a major dispute might arise between Japan and Britain because of this unexpected incident. In a letter to Prime Minister Hirobumi Ito, he said: "The stakes are so high that the consequences are almost incalculable. But he quickly calmed down again, thinking about how to change from passive to active and strive for a diplomatic advantage. While stabilizing the United Kingdom, he assured United Kingdom's acting minister to Japan Ba Kente that "if the Japanese warship hits the wrong United Kingdom ship, Japan will compensate for all losses." On the other hand, he instructed Kensumi Suematsu, director of the Legislative Affairs Bureau, to seize the time to further investigate the truth of the incident in order to find a way to cover up the truth. On 29 July, Tojiro Hirayama, captain of the "Yaeyama," submitted a report on naval warfare to the Ministry of the Navy, which was very different from Togo Heihachiro's report. Second, it avoided the details of the sinking of the "Gao Sheng" by the "Naniwa" ship; The third is to confuse the sinking of the "Gao Sheng" with the battle between the Chinese and Japanese warships. After receiving the report, Gonbei Yamamoto, director of the Ministry of the Navy, was still not satisfied, so he took matters into his own hands and revised the report. He deliberately changed the phrase "Caojiang, the transport ship Gaosheng flying the United Kingdom flag, (the steamship of the India Shina steamship company) was loaded with Qing soldiers and sailed from Dagu to Asan in the Pingshan report" to "Caojiang protected the transport ship carrying Qing soldiers sailing from Dagu to Asan"; At the same time, before the transport ship crosses the wave, the wave fires its cannon (the cannon to his attention) and sends a signal to anchor it. The transport ship dropped anchor and lowered the United Kingdom flag" and changed it to "But at this time, the above-mentioned transport ship was across the bow of the wave and the wave of speed fired a cannon to attract its attention." and to signal it to 'anchor', and the transport vessel shall be ordered to do so"; Changed "Although the captain of the transport ship surrendered, but the soldiers did not obey", it was changed to "the captain of the transport ship surrendered, but the crew soldiers refused and resisted". Such a change not only created the illusion that the Japanese ship did not know that the "Gao Sheng" was a United Kingdom ship, but also highlighted that the "Gao Sheng" was sunk under the escort of the "Cao Jiang" and the resistance of the soldiers. At the same time as this carefully "polished" report was concocted, the results of Kensumi Suematsu's investigation also came out, and he reported to Mutsu Munemitsu on August 10: "Regarding this matter, according to public international law, whether or not the behavior of our Naniwa ship is appropriate does not need to be discussed by the lower authorities." But in the light of the above facts, any impartial critic will have no doubt that there is nothing wrong with his conduct. Mutsu Munemitsu was satisfied with the revision of the report and the conclusions reached, and he believed that such a concoction would relieve the Japan Government from the legal responsibility for sinking the "Takasho", and he quickly informed Shuzo Aoki of the contents of the report and his own attitude as a basis for future negotiations with United Kingdom.

Aoki Shuzo received orders from home and began to work in the United Kingdom, and his means can be described as exhaustive. First, he used money to bribe the United Kingdom media with domestic support to sway public opinion, saying in a telegram to Mutsu Munemitsu: "The Daily Telegraph, the friendly Times and other major newspapers, due to prudent hiring, have changed their tune on the news." In addition to Reuters, several major newspapers and telegraph agencies have guaranteed cooperation. Westlake, a United Kingdom pundit, openly stated that the Naniwa was right under international law. The political correspondent of the Cologne newspaper in Germany, the friendly continental newspaper, was also affected by this. You're going to give me about £1,000 to be an agent. Second, he sent Baron Alexander · Siebert, a German employee of the legation, to the United Kingdom Foreign Office to lobby in an attempt to change the official opinion of the United Kingdom. Siebert and Boti had a long argument, and no matter how Boti cited facts that proved that the Japan warship should not have sunk the "Gao Sheng", Siebert always defended it according to the Japanese side's caliber. Siebert noted: "I believe that after the Naniwa began to block, it was the Chinese warship that fired the first shot. There is no doubt about this, because the 'Jiyuan' raised the armistice flag. It is not clear that such a thing is not clear in any way, because the 'Jiyuan' is still approaching its enemies even though the white flag is raised, which is very much like a hoax. "Under the laws of war, a belligerent has the right to prevent neutral vessels from carrying war embargo. I think you'll admit that the army and ammunition are embargoed. He also stressed that "the Naniwa has every reason to take such a military measure, and it is absolutely necessary to resist the crew that controls the armament and hostilities on board." Finally, he said in a threatening tone: "It would be all the more regrettable if the United Kingdom changed its friendly attitude toward Japan because of the conduct of an officer." ”

Japan's measures have touched the strategic thinking of some scholars in United Kingdom on Anglo-Japanese relations, and they advocate defending Japan from the perspective of maintaining the strategy of the Anglo-Japanese alliance to jointly deal with Russia. Dr. Westlake, a professor at the University of Cambridge, published an article in The Times on August 3 defending Japan's sinking of the Gosheng. He held that: First, the "Gao Sheng" was a Qing State transport ship flying the flag of the United Kingdom merchant navy, which was to provide services to the Chinese military, which was a hostile action and could not be protected by the United Kingdom flag and flag; Second, Japan cannot be prohibited from treating the "Takasho" as an enemy ship because the two sides have not declared war, whether war is declared or not, the hostilities between China and Japan have already begun, and the "Takasho" is engaged in hostile activities, which has nothing to do with the neutrality of United Kingdom; Third, Japan was able to prove that the Qing army of the "Gao Sheng" was sent to Korea to deal with the Japanese army, which was undoubtedly a hostile act, and Japan did have a military need to sink it.

On August 6, The Times published an article by Oxford University professor Holland, which pointed out that the fact that Japan officers threatened the "Takasho" with force to obey his orders was in itself a sufficient act of war; The "Gao Sheng" was also fully aware of the existence of war; Moreover, the "Takasho" is engaged in the transportation of ground combat troops, which is undoubtedly a hostile operation, and Japan has the right to use all necessary forces in order not to make it reach its destination. Therefore, Japan does not need to apologize or compensate United Kingdom, nor to the owners of the Takasho, or to the relatives of the European crew members who died. Huland also held that the evidence that the Japanese army shot and killed the Chinese officers and soldiers who fell into the water was insufficient, and even if such an act of the Japanese army was established, it would only involve the hostile Chinese and Japanese sides, and would not affect the legal relations with the neutral countries. He declared that he was concerned only with the legal aspects, leaving the behavior of Japan officers to be judged by chivalric rules or humaneness.

These views of Westlake and Hulander had a favorable impact on Japan in the judicial determination of the "Gao Sheng" incident. For this reason, many years later the Emperor of Japan awarded Westlake and Hulande the Order of the Rising Sun of the Second Class in recognition of their support for Japan.

Although Westlake and Holland's views have attracted some opposition in United Kingdom, after all, they are "arguments" carried out from the height of diplomatic strategy, which are naturally in line with United Kingdom's national interests and have been recognized by the United Kingdom Foreign Office. Subsequently, the United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign Affairs, out of strategic considerations for joining forces with Japan to resist Russia, decided to publicly highlight its attitude toward the "Gao Sheng" incident, holding that the sinking of the "Gao Sheng" by the Japanese ship did not violate national law, and that United Kingdom had no right to claim compensation from Japan, and on the contrary, the owner of the "Gao Sheng" India Shina the steamship company should claim compensation from China. In a letter to the India Shina steamship company, the United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:

"

First, before the Naniwa intercepted and boarded the "Gao Sheng", hostilities had already broken out between the navies of the two countries, and in fact it was recognized that the norms of international law did not oppose it, and there was no need for any formal declaration of war for the war to begin and a state of war to exist.

Second, although the nature of the activities carried out by the "Takasho" may have been peaceful and lawful from the beginning, the outbreak of war gave the Japanese side sufficient grounds to exercise belligerent rights against it. The Chinese officers on board the "Gao Sheng" forcibly seized command of the ship, and in fact it had become a belligerent ship. There is no norm of international law on which to base a claim by the shipowner against the Government of Japan.

Thirdly, the duty to compensate the United Kingdom subjects and property for the damage suffered thereby is in China, and, as you may expect, to support any reasonable claim of your company to the Chinese Government, or through the Continental Legation in Peking.

"

This notice, which completely stood on the position of the aggressor and shifted the responsibility for the war and reparations to China, the victim country, made the world completely see the most despicable conclusion that Britain and Japan had come to after a dirty deal.

Upon receipt of this letter, the Board of Directors of the India Shina Steamship Company expressed its disappointment and wondered why "the Japan men had been able to escape any punishment after committing this barbaric massacre and killing so many United Kingdom subjects innocently (an atrocity that had shocked the whole country) and showing disrespect to the United Kingdom flag". Of course, their subsequent focus was no longer just and justice, but rather concern that claiming compensation from China "would seem to lead to indefinite delays" and that "it is recommended that Mr. Jardine and Mr. Matheson immediately inform the Chinese authorities by telegram, and we will file a claim in due course." In May 1895, the India Shina Steamship Company filed a claim against China in the amount of "US$488,880". In September, the United Kingdom Foreign Office claimed a total of £46,166 and 9 schenlin from China in accordance with the Scottish Widowhood Statute.

The reaction and negotiation of Britain and Japan to the "Gao Sheng" incident|Commemorating the 130th anniversary of the First Sino-Japanese War

The Gao Sheng, who lost the escort formation, had almost no room for resistance

4

Li Hongzhang knew nothing about the behind-the-scenes dealings between Britain and Japan, and shortly after the "Gao Sheng" incident, he organized personnel to conduct an investigation, but he still relied on the interference of United Kingdom, which was also the victim country. He firmly believes that United Kingdom will never let the incident go undone. Just when Britain and Japan were making secret deals, the Sino-Japanese war broke out in full swing, and the drastic changes in the war situation on the land and sea battlefields involved all Li Hongzhang's energy, and he could no longer care about the rights and wrongs in the handling of the "Gao Sheng" incident, occasionally remembering the "Gao Sheng" incident, and only paying attention to the impact that United Kingdom's intervention would have on the war. He did not expect at all that when he was painstakingly dispatching troops, the United Kingdom Government not only did not restrain Japan through the handling of the "Gao Sheng" incident, but instead used this incident to show goodwill to Japan, strengthened the alliance between Britain and Japan, and not only passed on all the consequences of the "Gao Sheng" incident to China, but also relieved Japan of its worries about interference from United Kingdom, which undoubtedly made China's situation worse when it faced unprecedented calamities.

Although the handling of the "Gao Sheng" incident had a clear direction, after all, it evolved into an entanglement between China and Britain, and due to the influence of war and many other factors, the United Kingdom government could not immediately promote the implementation, so it had to be temporarily shelved. Until the end of the Eight-Power Alliance's war of aggression against China, the United Kingdom government took the opportunity of China's defeat to bring up the old matter again and demanded compensation. Salisbury, the United Kingdom prime minister and foreign minister, told Luo Fenglu, then Chinese minister to Britain: The "Gao Sheng" case, regardless of the merits, only discussed whether the money was paid or not, and forcibly claimed money from China. In the end, after several arguments and negotiations between the two sides, the Qing government compensated the United Kingdom with 33,411 pounds of British gold, according to the market price of the flat silver 312922 taels, 5 cents and 4 cents, and at 96 discounts of the real treasury flat silver 285513 taels 2 coins, 6 cents and 4 cents. These sums were to be returned by Wei Guangtao, the governor of Liangjiang, from the central government due to the central government from Ning and Su Domain. This was already in May 1903, when Li Hongzhang was long gone.

The final outcome of the "Gao Sheng" incident has once again shown that in the era of the power of the jungle, international law is by no means an effective weapon that weak countries can rely on to fight for their legitimate rights, but a tool for bullying the weak that the great powers play with applause, and that the international order is established with artillery and warships in accordance with the will of the powerful countries, and the way out for the weak and small nations lies in striving for strength and struggle.

References: Omitted

Source: Research on the First Sino-Japanese War, Issue 1, 2021

Editorial by: Information and Data Department

Layout and proofreading: Liu Wenjie

Review: Tian Shiguang

Read on