One, confusing, diverse opinions
(a) "cover up the evidence that". Comrades with this view that the Anglo-French allied forces robbed the Yuanmingyuan, the British army chief Erjin in order to eliminate the evidence of looting, and therefore ordered the Yuanmingyuan fire. This point of view is represented in the following works: China's modern history series: China's modern history, 65 pages, Shanghai People's Publishing House, December 1972 edition; Fudan University, Department of History, China's modern history of the group: China's modern history of a brief history of 86 pages, Shanghai People's Publishing House, June 1978 edition; Du Jingguo, etc.: China's modern history of a compendium of 35 pages, Gansu People's Publishing House, October 1983 edition; Liu Peihua, etc.: Imperialist invasion of the Yuanmingyuan, the British and French forces looted the Yuanmingyuan in order to eliminate the evidence of looting, and therefore ordered the fire destroyed. Peihua et al: A Brief History of the Imperialist Invasion of China, 105 pages, February 1985 edition, Huangshan Shusha.
The comrades who hold this view, full of strong national indignation, exposed and condemned the British and French invaders' acts of aggression and barbaric crimes of destroying human culture, which is undoubtedly correct and necessary, but their analysis of the reasons for the invaders to burn down the Yuanmingyuan is not in line with the historical facts.
First, there is no informative and powerful historical data to support it, not even a clear historical basis.
Secondly, it is subjective with the color of taking things for granted. In real social life, some people, especially some of those who supervise the theft (such as some books or novels often talk about the Qing Palace eunuchs, in the theft of Qing Palace treasures), in order to cover up the evidence of crime and arson to destroy the scene of the case is not uncommon, but this is only meaningful in the following circumstances; First, arson, people are still unclear, or at least it is not yet very clear who is the perpetrator of the crime: Second, arson, it may further complicate the case, or the case may be more complicated, and the case may be more complicated, and the case may be more complicated. might further complicate the case, or divert the direction or object of suspicion, and thus serve the purpose of obfuscation and self-preservation. However, in October 1860, the British and French forces looted the Yuanmingyuan, which was an open act in broad daylight, and even they themselves confessed to it, so the burning of the Yuanmingyuan could not achieve the purpose of covering up the evidence of their looting. More importantly, they never as we imagine that the looting of other people's treasures to produce a sense of shame, so as to develop the idea of covering up their evil deeds, but shamelessly this barbaric act of looting as a "Yuanmingyuan precious things, both removed, my soldiers into the garden, not robbery" [1] (P495), "and then to the Yuanmingyuan, not robbery" [1] (P495), "and then to the Yuanmingyuan, not robbery" [1] (P495), "and then to the Yuanmingyuan, not robbery". "to the Yuanmingyuan to take the objects, the soldiers share" [2] (P150).
Thirdly, regarding the reason for burning the Yuanmingyuan, the invaders themselves had a clear self-confession (see later for details).
"Covering up the evidence", although intended to expose and condemn the aggressor, but in fact neither theoretical strength, nor credible historical evidence, and therefore can not hit the aggressor's key points.
(2) "cover up the evidence of crime, while punishing the Qing Emperor said". Comrades who hold this point of view that the British military leader Erjin and others are in order to eliminate the evidence, and at the same time, in order to punish the Qing Emperor severely, so decided to burn down the Yuanmingyuan. This point of view is represented in the following works: Yuan Shuyi, Hu Siyong, etc.: Modern Chinese History, the first volume, 405 pages, the People's Publishing House, November 1981 edition; Chen Xulu: Eighty Years of Modern China, 149 pages, the Shanghai People's Publishing House, October 1983 edition; Chin Teh-cham, edited by: Modern China Course, Volume I, 224 pages, Shaanxi Tourism Publishing House, the Economic Daily Press August 1987 edition.
The comrades who hold this point of view, although touching on the essence of the burning of the Yuanmingyuan by the British army, but their point of view is still unsatisfactory. First, "cover up the evidence" and "punishment of the Qing Emperor" at the same time, and "cover up the evidence" in a more dominant position, obviously still not completely free from the "cover up the evidence". It is obvious that the influence of the "cover-up theory" has not been completely removed. Second, failed to do further analysis of the reasons for the British burning of the Yuanmingyuan and expose (see later).
(c) "military action". This statement has not been clearly seen in our country's historical writings, but in some literary works, and even historical materials, but can be seen in some clues. 1860 October 10, Prince Gong Yixīn @ ① and other people on the Zangbiao said: "the barbarians (British and French forces) have been copied to the De Shengmen Tucheng, after the attack on the Singhlinqin, after the Ruiling, our troops are not fighting since the collapse of the defeated soldiers have retreated to the Yuanmingyuan, the barbarians also came ...... to occupy the garden, burning nearby markets, heinous!" [3] (P2413) more than 10 years ago, Hong Kong filmed the film "Fire in the Yuanmingyuan", there is a description of such footage: the British and French allied forces invaded the Yuanmingyuan area of Beijing, raping and pillaging, the local villagers hunters rose up to fight back, and then outnumbered in the Qing management of the garden ministers to take the initiative to lead, retreated into the Yuanmingyuan Palace enshrined in the portraits of the Qing emperor's ancestors (should be the Yuanyu Palace in the Yuanmingyuan) inside the palace, and then the The British and French invasion forces pursued, and the looting and burning of the Yuanmingyuan took place.
There are many errors in this footage. Villagers hunters resistance may have, but as the Royal Palace of Yuanmingyuan guards will not allow its defeat to the Yuanmingyuan, more will not, and will not dare to allow them to hide in the Qing emperor behind the ancestral portraits. 36 years later, in October 1896, the late Qing Dynasty minister Li Hongzhang returned from a visit to Europe and the United States, with the Yuanmingyuan ruins, but also by the strict order of the blame: "special in the system does not fit, and to the Department of Discussion," what about the ordinary villagers trespassed into the temple Anyou Palace? For film and television works of art, we naturally do not have to comment on their mistakes in general historical facts, but on the serious distortion of historical facts and the bad influence, can not help but clearly pointed out.
The biggest mistake of this argument is that it inadvertently downplays the barbaric crime of the British and French armies' looting and burning of the Yuanmingyuan as a natural military act (albeit a military act of aggression) in pursuit of the resisters, and to a large extent exonerates the aggressors from the crime of destroying human civilization.
Two, the aggressor's self-confession of the most real
The above three statements have blunders or errors, then, the British army burned down the Yuanmingyuan the real reason is what? The author believes that on this issue, the aggressor's confession is more real and credible. In order to explain this issue more clearly, we need to briefly review the history of that time.
At the end of September 1860, the British and French allied forces were at the foot of Beijing, and Emperor Xianfeng of the Qing Dynasty fled to Jehol in a hurry, leaving his younger brother, Prince Gong, Yixīn@1, to negotiate peace with Britain and France. The British and French demanded the Qing court to immediately release the representatives of the British and French peace negotiators who were detained in mid-September due to the breakdown of the negotiation with the Qing army, or else they would open fire and destroy the city of Beijing. On October 6 and 7, the British and French forces looted the Yuanmingyuan and Qingyiyuan and burned some of the buildings, but on October 8, Yixīn@1, intimidated by the power of the British and French allied forces, ordered the British to send Basharai to the British camp outside Deshengmen. On October 12, the British and French allied forces sent a letter to Yixīn@①, demanding that the Qing court hand over the Anding Gate to the British and French allied forces on the 13th, or else they would shell the city. Although Yixīn@1 wrote to Gros, the chief representative of France, and asked, "French soldiers are still burning and looting the summer palace of the Emperor, what is the reason for that? ...... What is the reason?" [1] (P447) but still had to be forced to British and French compromise, and on the 13th officially opened the Andingmen.
October 17, Britain's chief representative Elgin to the Qing government "do not moral justice, disregard for international law", will capture the British and French "expatriates" 18 people abused to death as the mouth, note that the Qing government must unconditionally accept: a. "The Yuanmingyuan, the British and French "expatriates" 18 people abused to death as the mouth, note that the Qing government must unconditionally accept: a. "The Yuanmingyuan, the Qing government must unconditionally accept, "Yuanmingyuan, British and French expatriates suffered heartbreaking torture and death of the place. (Britain) vowed to destroy for the flat land, this article certainly do not need the recognition of King Gong, my army commander-in-chief has decided, will be implemented urgently." Secondly, 300,000 taels of indemnity were paid to Britain as pension for the dead. Third, the Qing government must send officials to "escort the bodies of the British and French expatriates who died to Tianjin. And by the Chinese government money to build a monument in tianjin, recounting these unfortunate people detained death and so on, and the British government asked for the money, as this perfidious atrocities of the penalty" [1] (P450). Later, although Erjin gave up in tianjin monument to insult the Qing court's request, but still savagely ordered the British army in October 18, 19 two days, will be the northwestern outskirts of Beijing's five gardens (i.e., Yuanmingyuan, changchunyuan, Qingyiyuan, Jingmingyuan, Jingyiyuan) three mountains (Wanshoushan, Yuquanshan, Xiangshan) and other royal gardens burned to ashes.
Erskine to the Qing government's note that: because the Qing government in the Yuanmingyuan will be British "expatriates" abused to death, so vowed to destroy it. Here only spoke of a pretext for the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, not its true intention. The captain of the British Royal Artillery, who participated in the burning and looting, admitted: "Because the Qing government for the captured British, most of them were killed ...... Sir Elgin and I feel that the Qing emperor must be severely chastised, and leave some traces of revenge to become, so we decided to burn his brilliant summer palace, to the ground. burnt to the ground." [1] (P393) Ergin's private secretary also said: the complete destruction of the Yuanmingyuan, not only "can leave a not easily extinguished, permanently preserved in the minds of the people," to show that the Qing Emperor's "chastisement", but also can prove that "The allied forces had already won the victory and occupied Beijing with great splendor ...... Otherwise, the Qing government could easily deny this fact"[1] (P399-400).
October 19, Erskine to the French chief representative Gros explained in detail the real motivation for the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, said: if the British troops do not burn the Yuanmingyuan, then there must be a can punish the Qing emperor instead of the method. There were no more than three alternatives: one was to demand a huge indemnity from the Qing court. Erjin that this method "is equal to the goods and property transactions, the sacrifice of human life, and in exchange for money," and this life of the indemnity, coupled with the "Treaty of Tianjin indemnity claim", a huge amount, the Qing court is unable to pay. Method two, the Qing court to hand over and punish the murderers. Elgin believes that the implementation of this law, such as the British side does not clearly point out the murder of the British, the Qing court must "to the very unimportant officials surrendered to the number and plug the responsibility"; British side, such as clearly pointed out the specific murderers, such as the Singhalese, etc., the Qing government "can not be from"; the murder of the British to death, is the Qing government "can not be from"; the murder of the British to death, is the Qing government to pay the reparations. British people to death, is the Qing government, "and make one or two private when the disaster, but also the reason is not allowed". Method three, the burning of Beijing Palace and other buildings. Erjin that the implementation of this method, will make the Qing government officials stayed in Beijing in fear and go, "I fear that no one dares to negotiate and also" [1] (P459). Erjin that the above three methods are stifled, and therefore finally decided to burn the Yuanmingyuan, and for this reason in the Yuanmingyuan area posted a notice that: "here to punish the Qing emperor does not abide by the preamble and violation of the peace treaty to see, decided to burn the Yuanmingyuan on the 18th." [1] (P400) British commander Grant to the French commander Montauban, the letter, even more explicitly frank: British and French troops although in early October looting and partially destroyed the Yuanmingyuan, but once the Qing government reoccupy the Yuanmingyuan, "within a month, can be restored", the Qing Emperor can not play a significant role in the fight. And completely "burn this garden, for the ferocious government, can make the punishment" [1] (P456).
Through the above quoted historical materials, especially the British invaders' self-confessions, we can assert with certainty that the British army burned down the Yuanmingyuan ultimately, the most fundamental reason, that is, to the Qing Emperor and the Qing government to carry out the most severe, the most direct, the most profound spiritual blow and punishment, in order to "show that our people (British) of the anger ". [1] (P456) Its most fundamental purpose is that, through this blow action, forcing the Qing court from now on completely foreign submission, so that China completely into its colony. 1859 British newspaper "Daily Telegraph", this colonial idea exposed: "Great Britain should be a full-scale attack on China's coastline, to hit the capital, and expelled the emperor from the palace ...... We should use the nine-tailed whip to whip every python-clad official who dares to insult our national symbols. ...... They (the Chinese generals) should be treated each and every one of them as pirates and murderers, and hanged from the masts of British warships... . should teach the Chinese to respect the British, who are superior to the Chinese and should be their masters ......"[4](P739)
The British army's looting and burning of the Yuanmingyuan not only caused the Chinese people immeasurable material and After the Boxer Rebellion in 1900, some of the Western powers proposed to completely burn the mausoleums of the ancestors of the Qing emperor, which can not be said to have nothing to do with the British army burned down the Yuanmingyuan; Germany and other powers forced the Qing court for the killing of Klinders and the establishment of a "monument to memory," the monument to Latin, German, Chinese Written in Latin, German, Chinese, "the great emperor of the Qing dynasty regret the murder of the purpose", I am afraid that can not be said with the Erjin to build a monument in Tianjin, the Qing government "murder" British and French "expatriates" requirements have nothing to do.
Three, is the excuse or reason
Since a large number of historical data are irrefutable proof that the British army burned down the Yuanmingyuan is entirely for the Qing emperor to carry out a spiritual blow, and leave a permanent indelible imprint, then, our history of this failed to point out clearly, but recognized the "cover up the evidence of the crime," "cover up the evidence of the", "cover up the evidence of the", "cover up the evidence of the", "cover up the evidence of the", "cover up the evidence of the". Then why our historical circles failed to point out clearly, but recognized the "cover up the evidence that", "cover up the evidence of crime, while punishing the Qing emperor that" and "military action that" three different points of view? The author believes that the reasons for this phenomenon are manifold.
First, our historians stand on the position of the Chinese people against imperialist aggression, out of strong national sentiment, to expose the crimes of imperialist aggression. This is undoubtedly necessary and correct, but failed to correctly and objectively reveal the real reasons for the burning of the Yuanmingyuan by the British army.
Secondly, some people, for various reasons, did not seriously study and analyze the relevant historical materials, but blindly follow the others into saying, people cloud.
Third, people are unwilling to face or unable to explain the Qing court will be arrested British and French prisoners, especially with the Qing government negotiation of the British and French representatives of the peace abused, killed, there is no sufficient reason to refute the British and French on the Qing government to the brutal killing of prisoners of war is "immoral, disregard for international law" [1] (P449), "against public international law" [1] (P449), "against public international law" [1] (P449), "against public international law" (P449), "against public international law" [1] (P449). "violation of public international law" [1] (P456) "barbaric and cruel behavior" [1] (P422) of the accusation, so take a simple avoidance or play down the soft treatment method. This is probably the crux of the problem.
The life of historiography lies in its scientific nature, and the national stance, national sentiment and the scientific nature of the study of history are consistent. In the author's opinion, the Qing government detained, abused and killed the British and French negotiators is a historical fact that we can not avoid, and the Qing government's practice is of course very wrong when judged by today's international law, diplomatic practice or humanitarian principles, from which we should learn a lesson. However, an important principle of historical materialism that we must not forget when studying and judging the historical rights and wrongs of certain events in modern China "is to refer the issue to a certain historical context"[5] (P375).
In the author's opinion, the British and French invaders' criticism of the Qing government for killing the British and French peace delegates, which was against the public international law, cannot, at least, be fully justified.
First, in terms of the provisions of public international law itself and the nature of the war, Britain and France waged a war of aggression against other countries, which is also contrary to the provisions of public international law of the inviolability of national sovereignty.
Secondly, as far as the legal effect of public international law is concerned, it does not constitute a binding force on the Qing government. Chinese and foreign experts on public international law believe that "the international legal order is composed of norms created by custom (customary international law) and norms created by treaty (conventional international law)"[6](P254), that is, public international law originates from international custom and international treaty. "There is a process of progressive formation of international custom, since it requires both repetitive similar conduct by States and the gradual assumption by States of legal obligations in such conduct ...... At the international level, the formation of a custom ...... often takes place over a period of several decades, or even one or two hundred years" [7] (P29). "As a general rule, treaties are binding only on the contracting parties and are not binding on non-contracting parties" [7](P27) and "a state is bound by international law only if it recognizes that international law is binding on it" [6](P265-266). Therefore, international law should be a law between states, and certain principles or practices put forward by a state or several states, although they may be of great political and legal significance, cannot yet become the basic principles of international law until they are universally recognized by all states. The public international law of that time was formed and relatively recognized in Europe and America (in many cases, even they themselves did not believe in it and did not abide by it), and the Chinese government neither participated in the drafting of the relevant international law nor expressed any recognition of it in the form of signing a treaty or a document, so from the point of view of the legal effect, the Qing government was not bound by the international law of that time.
Thirdly, as far as the historical facts are concerned, it was in 1864, after the Second Opium War, that the Law of Nations, the international law of the time, was translated and introduced to China. Prior to that, the Qing government acted entirely in accordance with the traditional Chinese rules of military warfare. In ancient China, there was certainly the traditional practice of not beheading envoys when two countries engaged in war, but there was also the concept of beheading envoys in order to show the determination to fight to the end, to honor the military flag, and to boost the morale of the soldiers. Here, we need to point out in particular that the beheading of envoys or prisoners of war was not unique to the Qing court. "French Revolutionary War, Barere (Barere) to the Parliament recommended that the British or Germans shall not be taken as prisoners (according to: that is, the surrender will also be killed) ...... American Civil War, Stonewall Jackson (Stonewall). Jackson (Stonewall Jackson, according to: is a southern general) declared: I have always believed that we should stand strictly on the position of justice and self-defense, with the northern invaders to meet, and immediately raised the black flag to (according to: Western practice, in the execution of the death penalty hanging black flag) shouted: 'invasion of our homes, people, kill without mercy! '" [8] (P298) How could the British be so generous to one and not the other?
The second opium war, the Qing government in the force to prevent the British and French forces to invade Beijing is about to fail, detained its negotiators as hostages to blackmail its withdrawal of troops, although not desirable, but it is in the war on the weaker side of the method repeatedly tried. At that time, the captured British Bashari to the Western countries of the rules of wartime bargaining as a standard, "always to be sentenced to death as a humiliation". The participation of the British and French intervention in the Qing dynasty military hospital Secretary Hengqi has another view, he said to Ba Xia Li: "two countries in war, both were captured, that is, the enemy, according to Chinese laws and regulations, to be tortured" [3] (P2357). We from the Department of the Ministry of Household, Yuan Xizou, "please kill the barbarians prisoner Chen into the annihilation of the machine appropriate疏", can be a brief glimpse of the Qing government officials at this time of the mentality and its ignorance of the knowledge of international law. He said: since ancient times, the plan to pacify the barbarians, to convince their hearts for the top, can not rely exclusively on the war to kill, but "today's situation is not". Because the British and French and other foreign barbarians "is not the year Meng can be compared", "easy to bind the tiger is difficult". Now the Sinhalese have been captured, it is appropriate to "His Majesty's Royal Palace, offering prisoners of Quechua, to stretch the law of the country and the hearts of the people" [1] (P476-477).
Since the Qing government before the Second Opium War knew little about public international law, of course, there is no concept of compliance. Therefore, it is inappropriate to criticize the Qing government exclusively on the basis of Western international law. This is not an exoneration of the Qing court by the author who stands on a narrow national position. A passage from the American Mars may help people to understand this issue. He said: before the Second Opium War, the Chinese people were "a people who did not know the conventions of modern warfare, a people who still needed to learn to use those basic signals such as the flag of truce, a people who still believed in the bookish dogma that the main goal of war was to kill the enemy" [8] (P297), and therefore in the war with the Chinese army, the Chinese people were not able to understand the signals of war. war with the Chinese army, "the difficulty that existed from the beginning was the use of the white flag of truce, a new rule in battle that the Chinese had never learned ...... and thus still could not be used in battle. The indignation of the British at such fraudulent conduct on the part of the Chinese (meaning still firing on the British with white flags) was as great as the indignation of the Chinese at the fraudulent conduct of the British in attacking the fortresses by attacking them on their flanks instead of attacking from the front where there was a fire"[8] (P299).
Here need to point out in particular is that the Qing court detained British and French prisoners of war, some people are indeed negotiators, but some of them are neither "holding the flag of peace" of the "messenger of peace" [1] (P449), nor the real meaning of The warring parties were not prisoners of war in the true sense of the word, but rather looters outside of the war. A 19-year-old French soldier, that is, because of its "sneak away from the troops too far, in a family looting on the capture" [9] (P204), this person was killed seems to be deserved.
The author believes that the British prisoners of war were killed, only the British burned down the Yuanmingyuan excuse, not the reason. There are four reasons.
One, some British and French prisoners of war were abused and died in the Yuanmingyuan, doubtful. The British side said: Britain and France were captured by the Qing army sent to the Yuanmingyuan, "hands and feet bound for three days, do not give food and drink" [1] (P456), at the same time, the Qing government and the Qing Emperor of the British and French prisoners of war "began to carry out his harsh punishment, and finally made them fall into the death" [1] (P456), the British and French prisoners of war. 1](P399). The basis for this is that they found several pieces of clothing, horses, saddles and bridles of British and French prisoners of war in the Yuanmingyuan. France's chief representative Grove to its foreign minister's letter, is more alarmist said: British and French prisoners of war were "hands and feet back binding, limbs and bundles, carried in a car, sent to the Yuanmingyuan, placed in an indoor, no one rescue, four days later, died of starvation and cold, the body of rodents and insects rodents" [1] (P462).
The author consults the Chinese historical materials, did not see the Qing government in the Yuanmingyuan mistreatment of British and French prisoners of war records. Such records are only found in the memories of the British and French. I have no good reason to deny the authenticity of this account, but I cannot help but express some degree of skepticism about its credibility.
According to Erjin's letter to Yixīn@1, the Qing government **** detained 37 British and French prisoners of war, and returned only 19 of them, while the remaining 18 were ill-treated to death. Among these 37 people, the highest status, the most valued or feared by the Qing court was the British negotiator Bartholomew and Locke. According to the "Reigns of the Qing dynasty to prepare for the beginning and end of the barbarians" records, the Sinhalese detained Ba Xia Li and others is September 18 (the fourth day of September). Qing Ministry of Justice officials said on September 22: the Ministry of September 18, 19 two days, * * * "incarcerated to the barbarians nine, within the Ba Xia Li a, incarcerated in the North Supervisor of the third" [3] (P2354). It can be seen, Ba Xia Li and others since they were detained, was sent directly to the Qing Ministry of Justice, not sent to the Yuanmingyuan. After the British and French demand Ba Xia Li and other people very quickly, and to the Qing court if not returned Ba Xia Li, etc., will attack Beijing threatened, the military court Secretary Hengqi on September 22, personally to the Ministry of Justice prison, to persuade the Ba Xia Li letter to the Erjin, to dissuade the British and French to retreat. October 2, the Qing court will be the Ba Xia Li, Locke, etc. from the Ministry of Justice to put forward, "in the De Shengmen within the temple temporarily live! ...... still treated with courtesy." [3] (P2382) October 5, and the other two French "also moved by the Ministry of Justice prohibited the place" [3] (P2402). October 8 afternoon, the Qing government "will be sent to the barbarians outside the door of Deshengmen camp" [3] (P2421). We can see from the above historical data, the most important Qing court Ba Xia Li, Rock and other British and French prisoners of war, has not been sent to the Yuanmingyuan. Since the British and French prisoners of war in the important prisoners were not sent to the Yuanmingyuan, its secondary prisoners of war what reason must be sent to the Yuanmingyuan? The fact is that the other British and French prisoners of war were not sent to the Yuanmingyuan, nor were they sent to the city of Beijing, but by the Minister of Defense, "handed over to the custody of the counties" [3] (P2356). Therefore, the British so-called prisoners of war in the Yuanmingyuan ill-treated and died, can not help but doubt.
Second, as early as October 6, 7, the British and French forces do not yet know, and did not put forward their representatives or "expatriates" in the Yuanmingyuan ill-treated to death, that is, has plundered the Yuanmingyuan, and burned part of the building. Even if the fact that, as Erjin said, the Qing government did abuse the British and French prisoners of war died in the Yuanmingyuan, the British and French retaliation against the Qing government has its certain "reasonable" nature, then, was burned should be only the Yuanmingyuan, and should not be five gardens and three mountains and other vast areas and ancient architectural complexes. May I ask, Changchunyuan, Qingyiyuan, Jingmingyuan, Jingyiyuan also British and French prisoners of war were abused to death? In this regard, how can the invaders justify themselves?
Third, some British and French prisoners of war were abused to death, perhaps. But the Qing government ministers and the British and French side also have the opposite record. The Qing Ministry of Justice has said: Ba Xia Li because "is a major crime of the barbarians, ordered officials to take precautions, and the prison hall morning and evening meals, are to make it comfortable, not a little abuse". However, Ba Xia Li "arrogant, arrogant sex into, always dare to be angry with the officials in the prison, refused to eat and drink". September 20, Ba Xia Li "suddenly suffered from abdominal pain," the Ministry of Justice officials "that is, quickly summoned the official doctor, diagnosis of the pulse and medication! ". Later, the Qing court officials for its another room, "and added intention to guide, began to eat rice porridge as usual" [3] (P2355). Therefore, the so-called "hands and feet bound for three days, do not give food and drink", seems to be untenable, at least for Basha Li and others, is untenable. after September 29, Basha Li, Rocco and others can even "perform the rite of confession of sins in the Church" [1] ( P446). 10 October, Basha Li, Rocco and others can even "perform the rite of confession of sins" [1] ( P446). P446). October 4, Ba Xia Li's letter to Erjin also said: "Now the Chinese officials, treated with courtesy" [3] (P2401).
Fourth, France's chief representative of Grove said: British and French prisoners of war were "sent to the Yuanmingyuan, placed in a room, no one to help, four days later, died of starvation and cold, the body of rodents and insects eroded", this statement also has two suspicious loopholes. First, on October 8, the Qing court has been Ba Xia Li and other British and French prisoners of war returned. And October 8 before Beijing is not cold, even within four days, Qing officials did not give British and French prisoners of war diet, but also not due to the cold and died. Secondly, whether the British and French prisoners of war are detained in the Qing Ministry of Justice prison, or the Yuanmingyuan, both for the Qing court, Qing officials could not let their deaths after a long time in which the corpse, and for the "rodents and insects".
Fourth, the conclusion
The British army burned the Yuanmingyuan reason, not to "cover up the evidence of the crime of looting", but out of the spirit of the Qing Emperor, so that the foreigners more tame invasion needs. They burned the Yuanmingyuan, but they chose carefully.
The Yuanmingyuan was not just a pleasure palace for the Qing emperor, but another center of political rule for the Qing court. Within its palace area, there were the Grand Palace Gate, the Golden Water Bridge, the Second Palace Gate (in and out of the Xianliang Gate), the Hall of Great Light, the Hall of Qinzheng Proximity, and the various departments of the court offices and court rooms, etc. The Qing Emperor spent about two-thirds of the year in the Yuanmingyuan. The Qing emperor about 2/3 of the time each year to deal with political affairs in this. Daoguang thirty years, the Minister of military affairs, the University of Qi Jun @ ② alga formulated nine articles of the military affairs regulations: "military affairs book file two, a store (Qing officials) Fangliu Hall, a store in the Yuanmingyuan". If the military aircraft Zhangjing on duty in the Palace, the Yuanmingyuan eight banners on duty by the officers and soldiers "carefully guarded" [10] (P306). Xianfeng emperor of the Yuanmingyuan bedchamber stored "1858 Sir Erjin (and the Qing government) signed the treaty and other instruments" [1] (P442), "piled up last year's promulgation of the Oracle" [1] (P437). It can be seen that the Yuanmingyuan was a ruling center of the Qing Emperor, and its importance was in no way less than, and in a sense even more than, that of the Qing officials in the city of Beijing. The burning of the Yuanmingyuan, for the Qing emperor's "arrogance and emotional aspects, quasi-definitely a big blow" [1] (P424). In Erjin's view, the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, is not only can be "hefty and severe" [1] (P457) to crack down on the Qing government, but also not because of the burning of the Qing officials in the city of Beijing and may scare away Prince Gong Yixīn@① and others, thus losing blackmail, blackmail object of the practice, so it is "the most flawless It is therefore the "most flawless" choice.
To summarize, the author believes that we should correct all the erroneous views about the reason why the invaders burned down the Yuanmingyuan in the past, and return history to its original face.
This "Xianfeng emperor alone to bring about the consequences of the bad" said the same questionable.
First, how to recognize and understand the Qing court killed British and French diplomats, journalists, prisoners of war and public international law?
Second, British diplomats, journalists, prisoners of war, etc., in the Qing court of the Ministry of Justice prison was subjected to "more horrible than Dante's "Divine Comedy" depicted the hell" abuse?
Third, the Yuanmingyuan was savagely burned, the Qing court abused and killed some of the British and French hostages (some of them were not prisoners of war, not to mention diplomats and journalists), and so on, to give the arsonists a mouthful, naturally, should be given to expose and criticize, but the British and French invaders should not be more historical condemnation and criticism?
Fourth, the British army burned down the Yuanmingyuan, is it true that its diplomats and famous journalists were abused and killed?