No. 66.
Mr. Low to Mr. Fish.
Legation of the
United States,
Peking, March 24, 1873.
(Received May 23.)
No. 242.]
Sir: On the 17th instant the four foreign ministers
nowhere each received a note from Prince Kung, asking
them to meet him on the 21st at such place as they might name, for the
purpose of discussing the subject-matter of the collective note of 24th
February. We replied, saying that we would meet him at the foreign office at
the time designated. Besides the prince there were present at this
conference all the ministers of the yamên except Wensiang, Pao, and
Chunglin. The prince opened the conversation by saying that the ministers
who had met us on the 11th and 14th instant had reported to him the
substance of what had occurred at those interviews, that he had hoped for a
satisfactory settlement of this question, and regretted very much to learn
[Page 168]
that there seems to be such a
wide difference of opinion as to what is proper and necessary to be
done.
In reply we said that we regretted not less than himself the present
unsatisfactory condition of the affair, and were not less solicitous than he
for its proper settlement in an amicable and friendly manner. There was,
however, an insurmountable obstacle interposed by the ministers of the
yamên, and unless it could be removed in some way there seemed to be small
prospect of coming to an agreement. We then went on to reiterate
substantially what we had said at the previous interviews, and closed by
saying that it was quite useless to discuss the propriety of our kneeling
when admitted to an audience, as such a request could not be considered,
much less complied with.
The rejoinder of the prince was, in substance, a restatement of the arguments
brought forward by the ministers on former occasions in support of their
position. He appeared to lay great stress on the fact that as he and the
other princes are obliged to kneel in the presence of His Majesty, if
foreign ministers were admitted to his presence without performing the same
ceremony, it would be a tacit acknowledgment of our superiority over the
highest officials of the empire.
As the substance of what we said on this occasion is embodied in the
memorandum herewith, (inclosure No. 1,) a Chinese version of which was
handed to the prince, it is only necessary to refer you to that document for
our reply to the prince’s argument.
Further discussion ensued without developing any new feature, and as the
prince did not advance any new propositions it did not seem advisable to
continue discussing the question without any prospect of getting nearer a
conclusion. We therefore remarked, that as there seemed to be small prospect
of reaching a satisfactory result by oral discussions, and as our
governments might very properly object to further delay, we begged His
Highness would give us an answer to our collective note at his earliest
convenience. In response to this the prince begged for further time before
replying to our note, saying that it was difficult to arrange so important a
matter in a few days. He also intimated that there would be a possibility of
an unfavorable answer if we insisted on having one immediately, as the
forces against granting this request were too strong to be overcome except
by skillful management, which would require time. To this suggestion we
responded that the question now under discussion had practically been before
the government for twelve years; that our definite request in writing had
been in his hands nearly a month, and that if the government is not now in a
position to say what course it will pursue it did not seem to us that it
would be in any better position a few days or a few weeks hence; we
therefore, felt bound to ask His Highness to lay our request before the
throne and get a decision before His Majesty’s departure from Peking in
April. In reply the prince said he would endeavor to hasten the matter as
much as possible, but he could not promise an answer before the 1st
April.
At the close of the interview the ministers of the yamên handed us a
memorandum in reply to the two furnished them, (see inclosure No. 2,) copies
of which were sent as inclosures 2 and 3 in my dispatch No. 238.
The prince’s tone and manner throughout was exceedingly polite and
conciliatory; he evidently wished to impress us with the fact that he was
anxious to arrange the difficulty, and that, if he should be unsuccessful,
the failure would be caused by the opposition of others who could not be
controlled or conciliated. His pleading for time showed that the government
is not prepared to refuse our request. It may be doubted, however, whether
the great apparent anxiety for delay is
[Page 169]
prompted by an honest desire to obtain an affirmative
answer; he is, I suspect, anxious to gain time, hoping that something may
occur which will enable the government to evade the question entirely.
That the demand of foreign ministers for audience of the Emperor, in
accordance with the usages of western nations, is repulsive to Chinese
notions of propriety I can well understand; nor have I deluded myself with
the idea that reason or argument (did it not fear possible results) would
ever cause this government to make the radical changes in its forms and
ceremonies which are necessary and appropriate. Such a concession would be
regarded by all classes as an assault upon their political, moral, and
intellectual position, opposed to all the teachings of their histories,
classics, and general literature, and contrary to their popular beliefs and
prejudices, through all of which the native mind has become thoroughly
possessed of the idea that the Emperor is the Son of Heaven, and
consequently without an equal on the earth. If I am correct in my estimate
of the feelings and prejudices of the Chinese concerning the “infallibility”
of their sovereign, it logically follows that all other nations must of
necessity be regarded as inferior to their own.
This deep-rooted faith being, as I believe, universal throughout the empire,
it is clear that the equality of other nations, which the treaties
recognize, is so only in name; therefore relations between China and other
nations rest on an insecure foundation.
Until the native mind can be freed from the belief that all “outside states”
are inferior, there can be no real relations of peace and amity between
China and western nations. Nothing that could be done would have the effect
to dispel these erroneous beliefs as some act of the Emperor, which would in
itself be a recognition of equality.
It is in this view alone that I attach importance to the proper settlement of
the audience question at the earliest time possible. To demand it and urge
compliance with the demand is a duty every western nation owes to its own
dignity and to the welfare of its citizen subjects residing here; it is also
a kindness to this government to try through this means to improve
relations, and thus prevent, or at least postpone, what are now likely at
any time to occur—hostile collisions, with their dreadful consequences.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Memorandum presented to Prince
Kung, at a conference with him and the
ministers of the yamên on the 21st of
March, 1873.
It will not be necessary to take up time with arguments in favor of
conceding the audience as an evidence of friendly relations; as an act
of courtesy that all friendly nations claim of one another independently
of their treaties, or as a right specifically established by Article III
of the British treaty. These considerations have been sufficiently urged
in the conferences of the 11th and 14th instant.
But in reply to the repeated assertion that the proposition of the
collective note has taken the yamên by surprise, it may be worth while
to remark that ever since the ratifications of the treaties of England
and France were exchanged, in 1860, the question has been under
discussion.
It is not only that one foreign minister after another has entered upon
it with the yamen, but by an imperial decree of the 12th October, 1867,
the yamên was directed to consider the matter. In December, 1867, Prince
Kung, when informing foreign ministers of the
exceptional constitution of the Burlingame mission,
made the following observations:
[Page 170]
“It is the usage, the prince is aware, among all the great western
powers, when peaceful relations exist between them, to send diplomatic
representatives each to the other; and as relations of friendship and
amity have now existed between the United States and China for some
years, this country ought ere this to have sent to the United States an
envoy with diplomatic functions; but the taking of this step has been
hitherto delayed because China has not been acquainted with the language
and customs of foreign nations. When, however, Mr.
Burlingame, a minister who is just in his
dealings and agreeable in intercourse, and who is thoroughly acquainted
with the relations of China and foreign nations, and in whom the Chinese
government, on its part, has always had full confidence, expressed his
willingness to act in this matter for China, His Imperial Majesty, moved
by a memorial on the subject, appointed him to be his high minister to
proceed to all the treaty powers, and Messrs. Brown and De Champs to be
first and second secretaries, respectively, to aid in performing the
duties of the legation. His Majesty, in this appointment, charged Mr.
Burlingame, assisted by his secretaries, with
the exclusive control and responsibility of the business of the
mission.
“But if no Chinese high officers had been sent, this country would have
remained as unaquainted as before with the duties of diplomatic
representation. His Majesty was, therefore, further requested to appoint
Chih Ta Chên and Sun Ta Chên high ministers to accompany Mr.
Burlingame,”
The important passage in this quotation is that which declares the desire
of China to become acquainted with the duties of diplomatic
representation as understood in foreign countries.
The Burlingame mission was everywhere received as a
mission from an equal nation. It cannot be doubted that the
commissioners, Chih and Sun, in accordance with their instructions,
informed the Chinese government of the forms in which the sovereigns of
the states they visited received them. It is certain, also, that at
Washington the mission was reminded that the United States Government
waived the privilege of personal audience in China only during the
Emperor’s minority; that in France this observation
prejudicielle was repeated, and that the mission was requested
to communicate it to the Chinese government.
The certainty that with the termination of the regency the question would
at once present itself has again and again been set before the yamên,
since the period referred to, by various ministers; and but seven days
before the assumption of the government by His Majesty the Emperor, the
ministers Tung, Chung and
Hsia, who had been instructed to deliver to the
minister of Germany a reply to the letter of credence still in his
hands, which reply for this reason he declined to receive, were told
that the imperial majority once attained, the audience question would
not fail to be brought forward. His Majesty’s majority having been
proclaimed on the 23d of February, the auspicious event was the same day
made known by Prince Kung to the foreign legations,
and upon the 24th the foreign ministers requested permission to present
their congratulations. The yamên protests that this proposition takes
them by surprise, and after various conferences continue to affirm that
foreign ministers cannot be admitted to the presence of His Majesty
except upon their knees. It is urged that, as the yamên is well aware,
the act of kneeling would be considered derogatory to the dignity of
foreign nations.
To this the yamên rejoins that to accept less would be derogatory to the
dignity of China, and when it is argued that the reception of the
representatives of independent states should be accorded in a manner
that admits the recognition of their equality by China, the yamên
replies that to modify the etiquette of China at the instance of
foreigners would be to humiliate the government, or, at least, to expose
the yamên to obloquy.
I believe that I do not misrepresent the attitude of the yamên, and if it
be indeed the case that the Emperor and people of China are so little
aware of the equality of nations, it cannot but seem to foreign powers
that the audience is even a more necessary concession than it has been
heretofore regarded. There can be no reality in the profession of
friendly relations between two sovereigns so long as either refuses to
receive the representative minister of the other except on condition
that the minister perform before him a ceremony which is by all other
nations rejected as degrading. To insist upon such a condition is
virtually to refuse concession of the audience, and with it those
relations of friendship of which representation at foreign courts is the
recognized guarantee. Let China dispense with the genuflection, and a
modification of the rest of the ceremonial may be agreed to. If the
genuflection be insisted on further discussion is but a waste of
words.
[Inclosure 2.—Translation.]
Memorandum by the ministers of the yamên handed to
Mr. Wade at the conference of the 21st March, as a reply to Mr.
Wade’s memorandums of the 11th and 14th.
Two collective notes, dated respectively the 24th February and 5th March,
have been received from the foreign ministers, the first containing a
request that the
[Page 171]
Emperor,
having assumed the reins of government, would grant them audience, and
the second asking that a day he fixed for a conference. Conferences were
accordingly held upon the 11th and 14th March.
The prince and ministers have perused the memorandum handed in by Mr.
Wade and the other ministers. It quotes Article
IV of the British treaty of 1358, to the effect that “generally he (Her
Majesty’s representative) shall enjoy the same privileges as are
accorded to officers of the same rank by the usage and consent of
western nations.”
The audience, then, being a privilege to be accorded by China to foreign
ministers, by the spontaneous action of China, means should of course be
found of giving effect to the proposition, in order that the dignity of
either party shall be conserved. This has been understood, and has in
former times been stated by the foreign ministers to the
undersigned.
On the 24th of February, however, being only the day after the great
ceremony of the assumption of the government by His Majesty, a note was
received from the foreign representatives requesting audience. This is
inconsistent with their earlier statements about spontaneous action.
Will their excellencies consider how this action must be regarded from a
Chinese point of view.
The memorandum further refers to a note sent by the yamên to M.
de Rehfues on the 19th February.
The yamên, upon this point, beg leave to make the following explanation.
The reply proposed to the copy of his letter of credence handed in last
winter by M. de Rehfues was in accordance with the
precedent adopted at the time a communication was received notifying
this yamên of the change in the title of his government. Furthermore,
this occurrence was previous to the 23d February, and is therefore to be
distinguished from the question now under consideration.
The memorandum further states that there is an impression in China that
foreign representatives claim to be the equals of the sovereigns to whom
they are accredited, but that such an assumption would be quite
unreasonable.
The statement that foreign ministers did stand upon such a footing of
equality has been made by some foreign representatives. The memorandum
explains with sufficient clearness their proper status. In the discussion some days since the ministers
maintained that China did not understand the equality of states as
asserted by the treaties. But China long since had relations with a
foreign power on a footing of equality. Russia, as the records show, and
as every one is aware, is a state with which she had long been in
friendly relations. In such a statement, do the ministers mean that at
the time referred to Russia was not treated by this government as an
equal, or that at the present time the European states do not regard
China as their equal?
The memorandum further observes that, this step being taken, foreign
powers will put away their misgivings, and friendly relations will be
strengthened.
Of this the prince and ministers are well aware, and they have expressed
to each of you their desire for a constant improvement in our
international relations. It does not follow, however, that in case this
matter cannot be immediately settled, China should therefore be
suspected of an intention to keep foreign powers at a distance. That
peace depends, not upon the audience, but upon a mutual carrying out of
treaty stipulations, is attested by the fact that in the reign of Kang
Hei an envoy dispatched by that sovereign to Russia was not received by
the head of that government; but, nevertheless, our relations have for
two centuries continued as friendly as at first.* China has never
suspected Russia of a desire to keep her at a distance. Where no
coercion is attempted on either side no difficulty presents itself. It
has not been necessary to wait until to-day for the dissipation of
doubts, nor is a good understanding to be interrupted by this
incident.
To conclude, audience is not a courtesy to which the Chinese government
is averse; it rather wishes it to be maturely considered because of its
great desire for a satisfactory adjustment. Could they content
themselves by simply making at once a representation to the throne, the
prince and ministers would have no difficulty in so doing. If, however,
in such a course, the proposed measure prove acceptable, well; but if it
does not, there would be a dead-lock. While by such a course the prince
and ministers could easily acquit themselves of their duty, they could
not at the same time satisfy their desires.
The ceremony which they propose† is a compromise calculated to avoid offense to
either native or foreigner. It has not been suggested as one that would
give China the exclusive advantage.
[Page 172]
This government looks for a desire on the part of the foreign ministers
to exact nothing in any way offensive to the dignity of China. With such
a desire, it will be possible to arrive, after mature deliberation, to
an adjustment of the question.
The intelligence of the foreign ministers in all matters, especially
those which affect China, is a guarantee that they will carefully
consider these observations.
