1860·9·18  ——  A  Date  

  Which  Will  Live  in  Infamy  

  of  His  Majesty  Hien-Fung

Upon the 18th October, the 1st division, under the

command of Major-General Sir John Michel, marched

from our camp near Pekin to Yuen-ming-yuen, and

set fire to all the royal palaces which lay scattered

about in that neighbourhood. Throughout the whole

of that day and the day following a dense cloud of

black and heavy smoke hung over those scenes of

former magnificence.

升級版谷歌同學一秒鐘完工譯文：

1860年10月18日，英軍約翰·米歇爾少將下轄第一師

從我們所在北京附近的營地開拔到圓明園，

放火燒毀所有散落的皇家宮殿。 整個過程

那天和密集的雲層之後的那一天

黑色和濃煙籠罩着那些場景

昔日的輝煌。

——  Excerpts from  Narrative of the War with China in 1860    Page 278

作者：1860年中英第二次戰爭中 英軍陸軍司令詹姆斯·霍普·格蘭特 James Hope  

          Grant 參謀部 後勤主管 deputy-assistant quartermaster-general 

          時年27歲中校 Lieutenant colonel 第一代子爵 嘉內德·約瑟夫·沃爾斯利 

          Garnet Joseph Wolseley, 1st Viscount Wolseley；1894年5月26日，

          晉升為陸軍元帥 Field Marshal

https://ia800208.us.archive.org/10/items/narrativeofwarwi00wols/narrativeofwarwi00wols.pdf

 Early in the morning of October 18, a division of British 

troops marched off to Yuanmingyuan.  The accounts left by 

the people present on that fateful day all mention the immense 

beauty of the gardens even in its post-looted state. “We marched

through scenery of the most enchanting beauty,” wrote reverend 

M’Ghee, and as he explained, the beauty demanded some kind of 

tribute, “a tribute so due that you must perforce pay it.” 99 

Other eyewitnesses must have felt the same. Beauty, they too

argued, cannot simply perish without us, its beholders, taking 

some kind of action; 

98 . According to Allgood there were 3,500 men 

involved. Allgood, China War 1860 , 58. 

—— Excerpts from   Liberal Barbarism: The European 

Destruction of the Palace of the Emperor of China

By  Ringmar, Erik

https://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/5852516/4612601.pdf

 In the end only 18

out of the 39 men came back alive. 

 This treatment, the Allies agreed, constituted a crime against 

the laws of war,

against humanity, and an insult both against Britain and France. 

The Chinese had

to be punished, the question was only how. The commanders 

considered a number of alternatives. 87 They could, for example, 

have asked the Chinese to pay an

indemnity or demanded that they turn over the men responsible 

for the treatment

of the prisoners. However, Elgin did not think it right to accept 

money in return

for human lives and besides, he argued, the sums would have 

been difficult to collect.  And if they had asked the Chinese to 

hand over the perpetrators, the imperial

authorities would surely have given them some miserable 

underling who the Allies

would have found it difficult to punish, and if they had asked 

for Sengge Rinchen

himself, the Chinese would have refused and the Allies would 

have had no means

of forcing them. 

Having ruled out the alternatives, Lord Elgin argued, only 

the destruction of

Yuanmingyuan remained.  It was an “act of retribution and 

punishment sufficiently severe to produce the required effect”

—it would avenge the lives that had

been lost, but it would also terrorize the Chinese, forcing them

 to agree to European

terms and reminding them for ever more just who the 

Europeans were and of what

they were capable. The effect, moreover, would be 

instantaneous, making it possible

for the Allies to turn southward before the weather had 

turned too cold. Although

other targets could be imagined, Yuanmingyuan was 

particularly well suited to

achieve these effects. This was first of all the case since 

the compound was where

the Europeans believed the 39 prisoners had been held 

captive. Through a complete

incineration, the site of their humiliation would be obliterated. 

Destroying the palace was also a way to strike at the Chinese 

emperor personally rather than at the

Chinese people with whom, Elgin insisted, Britain had no 

quarrel. Yuanmingyuan

“was the Emperor’s favourite residence, and its destruction 

would not fail to be a

blow to his pride as well as to his feelings.”  The action 

would no doubt “produce

a greater effect in China and on the Emperor, than persons 

who look on from a distance may suppose.” 

法軍兩位指揮官反對額爾金勳爵燒毀圓明園以報復殘害21名聯軍致死的提議

The French, however, were not convinced by these arguments. Baron Gros

objected in the strongest possible terms against the action Elgin 

contemplated and

he categorically refused to lend French support to a complete 

incineration.  “It takes

a courageous resignation not to let oneself be swept away by the desire 

for vengeance

which has taken hold of all hearts.” 94 Yet Gros left it open to General 

Montauban, as

the military commander, to make the final decision. Happily, Montauban 

reached

the same conclusion as Gros, and this despite strong pressure exerted 

on him by the

British commanders. I too have considered the question very carefully, 

Montauban

insisted in his reply to Elgin, and I have come to the conclusion that 

“this vengeance

is worthy of a people more barbarian than the Chinese themselves.” 

 Moreover,

if we burn the palaces and gardens Prince Gong might take flight 

and thereby we

might end up overthrowing the entire Qing dynasty. Such an 

outcome would not

be in the best interests of the French government. We want a 

China open to trade

and to Christian missionaries, but we do not want a China in chaos. 

 Yet none of

these arguments had a effect on Lord Elgin. The British made fun 

of the 11th hour

piety of the French, pointing out that they only would complete the 

work that the French themselves had begun.

沒有參與焚燒皇帝園子的法軍，

卻是1860年10月7日清晨先於英軍第一批進入圓明園搶掠洗劫的：

上述這一區別，法國作家維克多·雨果都注意到了，

難怪他在1861年11月25日信中說：

 This wonder, Hugo explained, has now disappeared. 

  One day two bandits entered,

  “ one plundered, the other burned. ” 

有一天，兩個來自歐洲的強盜闖進了圓明園。

一個強盜洗劫財物，另一個強盜在放火。