英國與武漢國民政府之漢案交涉－－以英國領事報告為中心

Wuhan Regime-British Diplomatic Negotiations over Hankow Incident: An Interpretation in terms of the British Consular Archives

北伐期間（1926-27），南方國民政府轄區內，因激進的民族主義和群眾運動而發生數起慘案，1926年初的武漢慘案即為一例。這些騷動迫使英國對華改採修和與妥協的態度。國內的經濟與社會騷動，以及殖民地要求自治的強大聲浪，亦迫使英國對外改採退縮政策（retrenchment）。在此背景下，英國重新修訂對華政策：不再獨尊北洋政府，並展開與南方政府的接觸和談判，以藉機試探、瞭解南方政府的內部狀況，並與之解決租界的問題。漢口慘案之協商即在此一目的下進行。另一方面，南方之武漢政府為取得國際承認、達成修約問題以取得國內的正統與合法性，亦欲與英國展開協商。漢口慘案的善後談判適足以提供中英協商之管道。因此，在漢案談判中，雙方談漢案者少，互相試探與瞭解者多。其間，雖然武漢代表陳友仁一再希望將談判方向引至一般性之修約與承認問題，卻遭英方拒絕。此外，影響中英漢案談判之另一因素則來自蘇聯在國民黨之顧問鮑羅廷（Mikhail Borodin）。他服務於蘇聯利益，為防止中英修好以及英國在華勢力的增加，遂一再破壞、阻撓談判，致使武漢政府態度反覆。終迫使英國決定放棄漢口租界與武漢政府。最後，武漢政府雖然收回租界，卻無法達到預期目標。

Zhang Xuecheng is a significant figure in Qian Mu's academic career. Qian once commented that he drew upon many important points from Zhang, because Zhang is able to find out many academic issues that are often neglected by other researchers. However, Qian Mu did not blindly follow Zhang's road. He further developed and innovated many academic points, such as the questions concerning 'East ZheJiang School' put forward by Zhang. With regard to the issue of 'East-ZheJiang School' study, Qian is of the view that Zhang, by such effort, is intended to recount his own academic origin. Qian agreed such view in his early works such as Introduction to Chinese Studies（《國 學概論》）s and Chinese Academic History of the Past Three Hundred Years（《中 國近三百年學術史》. However, in his later works Qian disagreed with Zhang on this question. This paper will focus on the shift of Qian Mu's academic points on the issue abovementioned. This paper will conduct contrapuntal reading the texts that Qian Mu wrote in different period of times and try to come to conclusive opinions on the relevant issues. Generally speaking, the transformation of Qian Mu's view is related to his understanding of YangMing School and Zhang Xuecheng, as well as his understanding on the development of Chinese academic development. Finally, the book Chinese Academic History of the Past Three Hundred Years is a monumental work of Qian Mu in his study of Qing dynasty academic history. However, with regard to certain issues, such as the comment on Zhang Xue Cheng, for instance, this book cannot by regarded as a conclusively work of Qian Mu on these topics.