In the extreme south, however, there has been established a Government of a different sort, for which it is possible to have some respect.  Canton, which has always been the centre of Chinese radicalism, succeeded, in the autumn of 1920, in throwing off the tyranny of its Northern garrison and establishing a progressive efficient Government under the Presidency of Sun Yat Sen.  This Government now embraces two provinces, Kwangtung (of which Canton is the capital) and Kwangsi.  For a moment it seemed likely to conquer the whole of the South, but it has been checked by the victories of the Northern General Wu-Pei-Fu in the neighbouring province of Hunan.  Its enemies allege that it cherishes designs of conquest, and wishes to unite all China under its sway.[33] In all ascertainable respects it is a Government which deserves the support of all progressive people.  Professor Dewey, in articles in the New Republic, has set forth its merits, as well as the bitter enmity which it has encountered from Hong-Kong and the British generally.  This opposition is partly on general principles, because we dislike radical reform, partly because of the Cassel agreement.  This agreement—­of a common type in China—­would have given us a virtual monopoly of the railways and mines in the province of Kwangtung.  It had been concluded with the former Government, and only awaited ratification, but the change of Government has made ratification impossible.  The new Government, very properly, is befriended by the Americans, and one of them, Mr. Shank, concluded an agreement with the new Government more or less similar to that which we had concluded with the old one.  The American Government, however, did not support Mr. Shank, whereas the British Government did support the Cassel agreement.  Meanwhile we have lost a very valuable though very iniquitous concession, merely because we, but not the Americans, prefer what is old and corrupt to what is vigorous and honest.  I understand, moreover, that the Shank agreement lapsed because Mr. Shank could not raise the necessary capital.

The anarchy in China is, of course, very regrettable, and every friend of China must hope that it will be brought to an end.  But it would be a mistake to exaggerate the evil, or to suppose that it is comparable in magnitude to the evils endured in Europe.  China must not be compared to a single European country, but to Europe as a whole.  In The Times of November 11, 1921, I notice a pessimistic article headed:  “The Peril of China.  A dozen rival Governments.”  But in Europe there are much more than a dozen Governments, and their enmities are much fiercer than those of China.  The number of troops in Europe is enormously greater than in China, and they are infinitely better provided with weapons of destruction.  The amount of fighting in Europe since the Armistice has been incomparably more than the amount in China during the same period.  You may travel through China from end to end, and it is ten to one that you will see no signs of war.  Chinese battles are seldom bloody, being fought by mercenary soldiers who take no interest in the cause for which they are supposed to be fighting.  I am inclined to think that the inhabitants of China, at the present moment, are happier, on the average, than the inhabitants of Europe taken as a whole.