We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2020
In 1896, Sir Halliday Macartney, counsellor of the Qing London legation, detained the revolutionary Sun Yat-sen on legation grounds in an attempt to deport him back to China. Since then, the image of the legation as an ossified extension of a despotic government has dominated public imagination. This article proposes a new way of understanding the legation's action: it exemplifies the legal activism of Qing diplomats in recovering judicial sovereignty that had been compromised by the presence of extraterritoriality and colonialism. Legations represented a broad range of interests of China through diplomatic negotiations and legal mediations, and brought unresolved disputes between foreign ministers and the Zongli Yamen in Beijing to the attention of their home governments. This article analyses the mediation and collaboration performed by the London legation between the various levels of the Qing government and the British Foreign Office. It argues that Qing legations and their diplomatic representation abroad were essential to the construction and imagination of China as a sovereign state.
I thank Jennifer Delton, Yue Du, Andrew Hillier, Christopher Munn, Peter Perdue, and the two anonymous reviewers from Modern Asian Studies for their feedback and suggestions. I am also enormously grateful to Ruth Rogaski, the associate editor of Modern Asian Studies, for her thorough readings and editorial suggestions.
1 Accounts of the event differ on whether Macartney was ordered to detain Sun by the minister Gong Zhaoyuan or whether he made the call himself. Given the fact that Minister Gong was gravely ill and absent from the legation (he died the next year, in 1897) and that Sun's own account points to Macartney as the chief architect of the affair, it is reasonably likely that the latter was the case.
2 Yat-sen, Sun, Kidnapped in London: Being the Story of My Capture by, Detention at, and Release From, the Chinese Legation (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Company, 1897), p. 97Google Scholar. For a detailed study of the case, see Wong, J. Y., The Origins of an Heroic Image: Sun Yatsen in London, 1896–1897 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar and Schiffrin, Harold Z., Sun Yat-sen and the Origins of the Chinese Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), Chapter VCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 On states and border control, especially with respect to Asian migration, see McKeown, Adam, Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008)Google Scholar. On states’ use of extradition laws and illegal renditions, see Unterman, Katherine, Uncle Sam's Policemen: The Pursuit of Fugitives across Borders (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoy, Benjamin, ‘Dispensing Irregular Justice: State Sponsored Abductions, Prisoner Surrenders, and Extralegal Renditions along the Canada–United States Border’, Law and History Review, 35.2 (2017), pp. 321–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Margolies, Daniel S., Spaces of Law in American Foreign Relations: Extradition and Extraterritoriality in the Borderlands and Beyond, 1877–1898 (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2011), pp. 323–324Google Scholar.
5 This point is echoed throughout the Foreign Office documents on the case. For example, Justice Wright, the judge sitting at the Central Criminal Court at the time, refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus ‘after looking into the law’ because ‘it could not run on Foreign territory which an Embassy or Legation legally is’ (FO 17/1718, p. 94). Instead of seeing the act as outright unlawful, the attorney general whom the foreign secretary consulted termed it a ‘violation of diplomatic privilege’ and applied diplomatic pressure on the legation to effect Sun's release. The most significant rewriting of the evidence occurred when the Foreign Office took the advice by the Law Office to substitute ‘visited’ with ‘entered’ to indicate the probability that Sun was taken in by force, thus accepting Sun's own narrative of the event (FO 17/1718, p. 131). Sun later revealed to his confidants that he walked into the legation voluntarily (Schiffrin, Sun Yat-sen, pp. 112–113).
6 A study of what can be considered a parallel process in internal policing as an attempt to recover sovereignty can be found in Lam, Tong, ‘Policing the Imperial Nation: Sovereignty, International Law, and the Civilizing Mission in Late Qing China’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 52.8 (2010), pp. 881–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 The Zongli Yamen and the Qing's legation in Washington, DC were in negotiation with the British colonial government in Burma and the US government regarding an extradition treaty on transnational and transborder fugitives in 1895 and 1896. Months before Sun Yat-sen's trip to England, the Qing government had complied with the British government's request to deliver up a Burmese fugitive who had escaped into the Chinese region of Tengyue. This connection is also suggested by the fact that intelligence reports regarding Sun Yat-sen's trip to the United States of America and England were processed along with those of Sino-Burmese transborder crimes. See Zhongyang yanjiuyuan jindaishi yanjiusuo dang'anguan, 01-23-007-03-001, 01-23-007-03-013.
8 In addition to classics such as Meng, S. M., The Tsungli Yamen: Its Organization and Functions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University East Asian Research Center, 1962)Google Scholar and Banno, Masataka, China and the West, 1858–1861: The Origins of the Tsungli Yamen (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the latest addition to this body of scholarship includes Richard Steven Horowitz, ‘Central Power and State Making: The Zongli Yamen and Self-Strengthening in China, 1860–1880’ (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998) and Rudolf, Jennifer, Negotiated Power in Late Imperial China: The Zongli Yamen and the Politics of Reform (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
9 Recent scholarship on Qing legations includes Barret, Thomas P., ‘Shinchō zaigai kōkan ni okeru seiyōjin sutaffu no gaikō katsudō ni kansuru kōsatsu: Shin-Futsu sensōji no Haridē Makātonī no katsudō wo chūshin ni’, Toyo Gakuho, 100.3 (2018), pp. 59–92Google Scholar; Day, Jenny Huangfu, Qing Travelers to the Far West: Diplomacy and the Information Order in Late Imperial China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keiko, Hakoda, Gaikōkan no tanjō: kindai Chūgoku no taigai taisei no hen'yō to zaigai kōkan (Nagoya-shi: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 2012)Google Scholar; Wenjie, Li, Zhongguo jindai waijiaoguan qunti de xingcheng, 1861–1911 (Beijing: SDX Sanlian shudian, 2017)Google Scholar; Ren, Ke, ‘The Conférencier in the Purple Robe: Chen Jitong and Qing Cultural Diplomacy in Late Nineteen-Century Paris’, The Journal of Modern Chinese History 12.1 (2018), pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 For recent scholarship on European mediators, see Hillier, Andrew, ‘Bridging Cultures: The Forging of the Consular Mind’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 47.4 (2019), pp. 744–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whewell, Emily, ‘Legal Mediators: British Consuls in Tengyue (Western Yunnan) and the Burma–China Frontier Region, 1899–1931’, Modern Asian Studies 53 (2019), pp. 1–28Google Scholar; Van de ven, Hans, ‘Robert Hart and Gustav Detring during the Boxer Rebellion’, Modern Asian Studies 40.3 (2006), pp. 631–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The one classic study on Qing legations, Hsü's, Immanuel China's Entrance into the Family of Nations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, only deals with their dispatch and establishment up to 1878.
11 Ariye, Akira, ‘Culture’, The Journal of American History 77:1 (1990), p. 100Google Scholar. For a critical reflection of this change, see Reynolds, David, ‘International History, the Cultural Turn and the Diplomatic Twitch’, Cultural and Social History 3 (2006), pp. 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Mosslang, Markus and Riotte, Torsten, ‘Introduction: The Diplomats’ World’ in Mosslang, Markus and Riotte, Torsten, eds., The Diplomats’ World: A Cultural History of Diplomacy, 1815–1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 11Google Scholar.
13 See, for example, Lorca, Arnulf Becker, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scarfi, Juan Pablo, The Hidden History of International Law in the Americas: Empire and Legal Networks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Carrai, Maria Adele, Sovereignty of China: A Genealogy of a Concept since 1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), p. 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 The primary locations of the documents are FO 17/768, FO 17/794, FO 17/821, FO 17/844, FO 17/869, FO 17/911, FO 17/932, FO 17/939, FO 17/967, FO 17/990, FO 17/1000, FO 17/1025, FO 17/1034, FO 17/1052, FO 17/1058, FO 17/1073, FO 17/1077, FO 17/1078, FO 17/1079, FO 17/1080, FO 17/1081, FO 17/1091, FO 17/1104, FO 17/1120, FO 17/1142, FO 17/1166, FO 17/1175, FO 17/1176, FO 17/1210, FO 17/1250, FO 17/1286, FO 17/1355, FO 17/1397, FO 17/1435, FO 17/1495, FO 17/17/1542, FO 17/1611, FO 17/1630, FO 17/1652, FO 17/1681, and FO 17/1718. For full transcriptions of these bilingual documents, see the author's edited volume under her Chinese name: Huangfu, Zhengzheng, Wan Qing zhu Ying shiguan zhaohui dang'an (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2020)Google Scholar.
16 Day, Qing Travelers, pp. 129–133.
17 Copies and drafts of these documents, which primarily consist of British diplomats’ translations of Chinese original documents or their memoranda of conversations with the Chinese ministers, can be found in FO 17, FO 228, and FO 682.
18 Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 5Google Scholar.
19 See, for example, Hevia, James L., English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteen-Century China (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Liu, Lydia, The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.
20 Ruskola, Teemu, Legal Orientalism: China, The United States, and Modern Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), p. 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Chen, Li, Chinese Law in Imperial Eyes: Sovereignty: Justice, and Transcultural Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), p. 114Google Scholar.
22 Originally a British military surgeon who advised the Qing's provincial officials in the 1860s, Halliday Macartney was recruited by Guo Songtao, the first Qing minister to London in 1876, to serve as the legation's English sectary. He was later promoted as the counsellor of the legation and continued to play an indispensable role in the legation's daily function until shortly before his death in 1906. See Boulger, Demetrius C., The Life of Sir Halliday Macartney: Commander of Li Hung Chang's Trained Force in the Taeping Rebellion (London and New York: John Lane, 1908)Google Scholar.
23 Lorca, Mestizo International Law, p. 54.
24 FO 17/967, Chinese legation's memorandum to the Foreign Office embodying views of Zongli Yamen, 21 March 1884, pp. 5–13.
25 Mayers, William Frederick, Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers (Shanghai: North-China Herald Office, 1902), p. 19Google Scholar.
26 Li Wenjie's work on the secretaries of the Zongli Yamen has made a persuasive case for seeing them as distinct types of specialists on foreign affairs. See Li, ‘Zongli Yamen zongban zhangjing yanjiu’, Shilin, no. 5 (2010), pp. 89–99.
27 The journal entries of Guo Songtao, Zeng Jize, and Xue Fucheng provide vivid description of the constant traffic of foreign diplomatic elite through the legation. See Songtao, Guo, Lundun yu bali riji (Hunan: Yuelu shushe, 1984)Google Scholar; Jize, Zeng, Zeng Jize riji (Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 1998)Google Scholar; Fucheng, Xue, Chushi Ying Fa Yi Bi siguo riji (Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 1985)Google Scholar.
28 Otte, T. G., The Foreign Office Mind: The Making of British Foreign Policy, 1865–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 6–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although Otte's book does not deal with British diplomacy with China, many of the diplomats in his book had close relationships with Macartney. For example, Lord Sanderson said to Macartney, upon his retirement: ‘In the thirty years of your work here, whatever you have promised on behalf of China has been faithfully performed.’ See Boulger, The Life of Sir Halliday Macartney, p. 485.
29 Robinson, Ronald, ‘Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism: Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration’ in Owen, Roger and Sutcliffe, Bob, eds., Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (Harlow: Longman, 1972), pp. 117–142Google Scholar; Osterhammel, Jürgen, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015)Google Scholar.
30 Reinhardt, Anne, Navigating Semi-Colonialism: Shipping, Sovereignty, and Nation-Building in China, 1860–1937 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2018), p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Robinson, ‘Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism’, p. 121.
32 Van de ven, ‘Robert Hart and Gustav Detring’, p. 633.
33 For example, as soon as the Sino-French War was over, the Qing legation began tackling the negotiation of the lijin question specified in the Chefoo Convention (FO 17/967). For a discussion of the legations’ adoption of telegraphy, see Day, Qing Travelers, Chapter 5.
34 Although the present study focuses on the London legation, it is useful to point out that the first successful instance of telegraph-powered legation diplomacy was Zeng Jize's negotiation of the Treaty of Ili in St Petersburg, 1880–81. See Day, Qing Travelers, pp. 172–173.
35 The London legation had access to the files and reports associated with the commission because, as the principal liaison between the Qing government and the colonial government, it was responsible for applying through the British Foreign Office for the accommodation of the colonial government in the Straits Settlements. See also Qingji waijiao shiliao 4, ‘Shi Ying Xue Fucheng zou Yingshu gebu ni tianshe lingshi baohu huamin zhe’, p. 1727.
36 Qingji waijiao shiliao 5, ‘Shi Ying Xue Fucheng zou binhai yaoqu tianshe lingshi jianyuan diaochong zhe’, p. 1736.
37 The process by which these disparate documents were synthesized and culminated in the legation's successful petition is recorded in Xue Fucheng's journal, Chushi Ying Fa Yi Bi siguo riji, p. 214. I thank Thomas Barrette for pointing this document out to me.
38 FO 17/1104, Chinese Legation to the Foreign Office, 25 September 1890, pp. 44–46.
39 For example, the first instance of the London legation resolving issues that the Zongli Yamen could not deal with effectively involved a relatively minor dispute in Zhenjiang, when a British-owned ship refused to accept a local official's request to move to another location. Upon Robert Hart's suggestion, the Zongli Yamen forwarded all relevant documents to the Qing's London legation and asked the minister to bring up the case with the British Foreign Office. See Qingji waijiao shiliao 2, pp. 249–250.
40 For example, during Liu's tenure, the majority of cases handled by the legation had to do with the training of naval students. Gong was absent from the legation for much of his tenure due to his poor health, which partly explains why most letters issued by the legation during this period included no Chinese text. The absence of the Chinese texts continued after Gong's tenure.
41 A primary endorser of this view can be found in Boulger, The Life of Sir Halliday Macartney, which claims that ‘his whole life was passed in endeavouring to educate a Government which will not, or perhaps cannot learn, so deeply is it imbued in its own fancied perfection and pre-eminence’ (p. 488).
42 Macartney's frustration with Ministers Liu Ruifen and Gong Zhaoyuan can be seen in a private note he sent to the under secretary of foreign affairs, F. Bertie, on 4 September 1896, on Gong's replacement: ‘Whoever may be the new Minister I hope he will be a man of ability, and one who enjoys the confidence of the Imperial Government: not the creature of one of the provincial authorities as was the present Minister and, in a lesser degree, his immediate predecessor. For nothing could be more detrimental to the maintenance of good relations between the two countries than for you to have a Chinese Minister in London who, instead of looking to the Yamen for his instructions, would rather look to the particular Viceroy to whom he owed his appointment. I know of instances in which the Minister in London has delayed acting on the instructions of the Yamen more than once repeated until he had consulted the wishes of his patron. Such a condition of things can have but one result: delay in the settlement of business and estrangement between the two Governments.’ See FO 17/1286, Macartney confidential note to F. Bertie, 4 September 1896.
43 Susan Schattenberg, ‘The Diplomat as “an Actor on a Great Stage before All the People”? A Cultural History of Diplomacy and the Portsmouth Peace Negotiations of 1905’, in Mosslang and Riotte, eds., The Diplomats’ World, p. 171.
44 Only hints of this case can be found in Chinese sources from the Qing period: a brief Qingshilu entry and a draft memorandum in Deng Chengxiu's collected works (see note below). Zeng Jize's diary from these years gives only vague hints to his involvement in this case, such as his entry on 11 November 1882 of meeting with ex-Governor Hennessy at the London legation (Zeng Jize riji, v. 2, p. 1205).
45 Chengxiu, Deng, Yubingge zouyi (Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1967), pp. 153–154Google Scholar.
46 FO 17/1077, Viceroy to H.M. Consul, 4 December 1880, pp. 161–166.
47 Lee, Ivan, ‘British Extradition Practice in Early Colonial Hong Kong’, Law & History 6:1 (2019), pp. 85–114Google Scholar.
48 For the Law Officers’ opinion on the defects of the treaty with regard to extradition, see ‘The Law Officers of the Crown to the Earl of Clarendon’, 25 November 1865, contained in FO 17/1079.
49 FO 17/1077, Viceroy to H.M. Consul, pp. 161–166. Beginning in 1865, the promise not to use torture to extract confessions had been given by the Cantonese authority in its pleas of extradition (see FO 17/1077, Sir J. Pauncefote to the Law Officers of the Crown and Dr Deane, 14 June 1882, p. 72).
50 FO 17/1077, Consul Hewlett to Acting Colonial Secretary, 14 December 1880, pp. 142–146. On Hewlett's refusal to give his source of information, see Pope Hennessy to Thomas Wade, 12 April 1881, in FO 17/1077, pp. 194–196).
51 FO 17/1078, Governor Hennessy to the Earl of Kimberly, 14 December 1881, p. 8.
52 For a study of Western perceptions of lingchi, see Brook, Timothy, Bourgon, Jerome, and Blue, Gregory, Death by a Thousand Cuts (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 On the legation's telegraphic communication with the Zongli Yamen and domestic authorities, see Day, Qing Travelers, Chapter 5.
54 FO 17/1077, Pauncefote's memorandum, 30 July 1881, pp. 132–133.
55 FO 17/1077, Pauncefote's memorandum, 2 August 1881, pp. 125–128.
56 FO 17/1077, Pauncefote's memorandum, 2 August 1881, p. 128. Zeng's suggestion of establishing a Chinese consulate met an immediate objection on the grounds that such a move had always been resisted in Hong Kong, as it was understood that criminal jurisdiction could not be conceded to a foreign power in a colony. It should be observed that Zeng's inquiry and the FO's response, once archived in the legation, became integral to the institutional records and professional knowledge it housed, which permitted Minister Xue Fucheng and Halliday Macartney to formulate their request for a general consulate in the Straits Settlements.
57 FO 17/1078, Chinese legation to the Foreign Office, 22 July 1882, pp. 84–87.
58 FO 17/1078, Pope Hennessy to the Earl of Kimberly, 14 December 1881, pp. 7–11.
59 FO 17/1078, Chinese legation to the Foreign Office, 22 July 1882, pp. 84–87; FO 17/911, p. 72 (Chinese).
60 FO 17/1078, Chinese legation to the Foreign Office, 25 July 1883, pp. 246–247; FO 17/939, p. 74 (Chinese).
61 FO 17/1079, Sir Bowen to the Earl of Derby, 31 December 1883, pp. 45–56.
62 Munn, Anglo-China, p. 179.
63 FO 17/1079, The Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Society to the Earl of Derby, 13 February 1884, pp. 16–17.
64 The North-China Daily News, 19 April 1884, 25 April 1884, 15 May 1884.
65 FO 17/1079, The Law Officers of the Crown and Dr Deane to Earl Granville, 18 September 1884, p. 284.
66 FO 17/1079, The Chinese Legation to Earl Granville, 8 December 1884, pp. 342–348; FO 17/967, p. 87 (Chinese text).
67 The references to which Zeng made are the following: (1) No. 2 of 1850 ‘An Ordinance to Provide for the More Effective Carrying Out of the Treaties between Great Britain and China in so Far as Relates to Chinese Subjects within the Colony of Hong Kong’ in The Ordinances of Hong Kong (London: George E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1866), pp. 70–71; (2) No. 13 of 1870 ‘An Ordinance of the Extradition of Certain Fugitives from Justice’ in The Ordinances of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Hong Kong, vol. II (Hong Kong: Noronha & Co., 1890), pp. 1066–1077.
68 FO 17/1080, The Law Officers of the Crown and Sir J. Deane to the Marquis of Salisbury, 19 September 1885, pp. 66–71.
69 The various drafts and notes of this treaty can be found in FO 17/1630, pp. 7–112.
70 FO 17/1630, Chinese Legation to the Foreign Office, 10 October 1887, pp. 125–126.
71 Boulger, The Life of Sir Halliday Macartney, p. 473.
72 FO 17/1435, Luo Fenglu to Salisbury, 10 January 1900, p. 4.
73 In his study of Qing diplomacy in 1900, historian Dai Haibin likewise observed that the legations’ direct access to the foreign governments was instrumental in allowing provincial officials to bypass the court and the Grand Council to reach the world. See Haibin, Dai, ‘Zhongguo waijiao jindai zhuanzhe de jiedian: Jianlun Gengzi shibian qianhou ruogan waijiao wenti, 1900–1911’, Shehui kexue zhanxian, 12 (2011), p. 24Google Scholar.
74 On Qing officials’ resistance to the British navy's demonstration and the British Consul's proposal to occupy Shanghai militarily, see Haibin, Dai, ‘“Dongnan hubao” zhi lingmian: 1900 nian Yingjun denglu shanghai shijian kaoshi’, Shilin, no. 4 (2010), pp. 119–131Google Scholar.
75 FO 17/1435, Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, 19 June 1900, p. 73.
76 FO 17/1435, Salisbury's notes, 19 June 1900, p. 77.
77 FO 17/1435, Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, 26 June 1900, p. 89.
78 FO 17/1435, Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, 9 August 1900, 11 August 1900, pp. 146, 154.
79 FO 17/1435, Enclosure in Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, Telegram from Sheng Xuanhuai on 4 August, p. 128.
80 FO 17/1435, Enclosures in Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, Telegrams from Sheng Xuanhuai on 27 July, from Li Hongzhang on 30 July, from the Zongli Yamen on 4 August, and from Sheng Xuanhuai on 7 August, pp. 117, 124, 128, 145.
81 FO 17/1435, Enclosures in Sir Chihchen Lofengluh to the Marquess of Salisbury, Telegrams from Li Hongzhang, Liu Kunyi, Chang Zhidong, etc. on 20 August, 29 August, 30 August, 1 September, pp. 176, 194, 196, 199.
82 Otte, T. G., ‘The Boxer Uprising and British Foreign Policy’ in Bickers, Robert and Tiedemann, R.G., eds., The Boxers, China, and the World (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), p. 160Google Scholar.
83 The continued service of Claude Macdonald and Everard Duncan Fraser were both granted by the Foreign Office, FO 17/1435, p. 229; FO 17/1495, p. 226.
84 It is important to point out that Qing diplomats who had served during the pre-1900 period were indispensable for crafting the image of the Republic of China. On the continuity from late Qing to early republican diplomats, see Hakoda, Gaikōkan no tanjō; Shin, Kawashima, Chūgoku kindai gaik ō no keisei (Nagoya-shi: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 2004)Google Scholar; Wenjie, Li, Zhongguo jindai waijiaoguan qunti de xingcheng (1861–1911) (Beijing: Shenghuo dushu xinzhi sanlian shudian, 2017)Google Scholar.
85 Day, Qing Travelers, Chapter 6.
86 Haijian, Mao, ‘Baxi zhaomu huagong yu Kang Youwei yumin Baxi jihua zhi chubu kaozheng’, Shilin, no. 5 (2007), pp. 1–18Google Scholar.
