Page:Brinkley - China - Volume 3.djvu/41

equality, and promising the immediate resumption of British trade at Canton.

But the Emperor refused to ratify this agreement. That again has been frequently adduced as an example of Chinese bad faith. When, however, has the doctrine been established that a sovereign is irrevocably bound by the acts of his plenipotentiaries? Were such a principle admitted, ratification would become a superfluity. If the Chinese Emperor declined to ratify the Elliot-Kishen treaty because it conceded too much to England, the Queen of England, on her side, refused to ratify it because it conceded too little. What Chinese history tells about the Throne's instructions to Kishen is that he was directed to grant freedom of trade if that would satisfy the British, but in the event of their proving exorbitant, he was to protract the negotiations so as to gain time for strengthening his defences and obtaining reinforcements. Kishen, however, commenced by disbanding a large part of his troops, and then carried his concessions far beyond the Emperor's limit. Hence, when the text of the compact reached Peking, the Emperor indignantly rejected it, declared that he would not pay a dollar for the opium or yield an inch of territory; ordered the muster of troops at Canton and restored Lin to favour.

Commissioner Lin's views at this juncture mark him as one of China's shrewdest statesmen. He had allowed himself to be betrayed into a