Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 1, 1873
No. 71.
Mr. Low to Mr. Fish.
Peking, May 16, 1873. (Received July 7.)
Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a corrected copy of the protocol of the recent conferences concerning the audience question, and have to request that it may be substituted for the copy that went forward as an [Page 180] inclosure in my No. 252. A copy of the Russian minister’s letter, referred to in the memorandum, is also inclosed.
The Chinese and foreign ministers met at this legation yesterday and signed the protocol; it will now be laid before the Emperor, accompanied by a memorial on the subject, signed by the ministers of the yamên. We were given to understand yesterday that the Emperor’s decision might be expected in about ten days.
We have no positive information as to what the result will be; at the same time I do not anticipate an unfavorable answer to our request.
I have, &c.,
Memorandum handed to the foreign ministers on the 29th April. It purports to be a copy of a memorial produced by the grand secretary and his colleagues at a conference at the yamên on the 21st instant, with notes of the arguments and observations, advanced on either side at that conference. Also containing alterations and notes made at the conferences of the 27th and 29th.
The following articles set forth the various propositions relating to the audience which have to be considered. There are, besides, other essentials not completely disposed of, which will be the subject of supplementary discussion.
Art. I. The etiquette of China differing from that of foreign countries, nothing is to be insisted on derogatory to the dignity of either side.
Note.—Mr. Vlangaly, Mr. Wade, and M. Geofroy stated that the genuflection was impossible. The Chinese ministers answered that they could not but be aware of the objection to it, after the numerous conferences held since the 23d February, but having received His Majesty’s commands to enter upon conference with a view to a satisfactory settlement, it was their duty once more to discuss the question of etiquette thoroughly, so that they might be enabled to submit it, together with the other propositions herein enumerated, to the decision of His Majesty.
The foreign ministers observed that if the subject-matter of this article were dropped forever, they could proceed to discuss the rest. They further observed that henceforth no allusion ought to be made to the genuflection, whether in official or semiofficial correspondence, or in conversation.
The Chinese ministers replied that they could not say that the subject would never be brought up again. They had received His Majesty’s commands to consider certain propositions, in order to their satisfactory settlement, and to report to the throne. If after their report is made the audience is practicable, there would be no occasion for further consideration of this subject; if impracticable, still less would it have to be considered. There was therefore no occasion to reiterate the injunction to mention the matter no more.
Art. II. Audience being granted to foreign ministers of the first class when provided with letters of credence from their governments, none other (i. e., none without letters of credence) are included in this category.
Note.—The three foreign ministers then present observed that none of them was a minister of the first class. But this does not affect the audience question in any way; it matters not of what grade the minister sent maybe; all that are furnished with letters from the sovereigns of their states, on their arrival in a foreign state, are entitled to request an audience of its sovereign. If they have no letter from the sovereign of their own state, and are simply provided with a letter from their foreign office, they are not in the category. Chargés d’ affaires, and the like, have no letters of credence.
The Chinese ministers asked: When foreign ministers come for the first time to China, bringing letters of credence, and being thus commissioned by their sovereigns are entitled to ask to be received by the Emperor, what course is to be pursued with reference to those who have already delivered their letters of credence?
The foreign ministers replied that the best course for a minister so situated to pursue, would be to ask that his letter of credence be returned to him. He would then, when received by the Emperor, present it; he would then be in the same position as the rest.
The Chinese minister asked: How if there were a discrepancy in the surnames, names, dates of the year or moon?
The foreign ministers answered: If a minister have not a letter with his own name [Page 181] in it, he cannot borrow one with the name of another, (or a minister cannot make use of a letter of credence in which there is the name of another.) No such discrepancy affects the letter of credence that any one now minister here has presented. The date is of no consequence, as it merely indicates the time when the letter of credence was issued.
Art. III. The ceremony of the audience is one of such importance that it would be wrong were it to be performed lightly, (or without serious occasion.) It will therefore be proper that the present reception of the ministers of five powers, as set forth in this memorandum, all at one time, be made to serve as a precedent; and ministers desiring to be received will also have to wait until they are honored by a special signification of His Majesty’s pleasure.
Note.—The foreign ministers inquired as to the meaning of this article. Did it mean that while, from this time forth, reception, as a matter of course, could not but be granted by the Emperor to any foreign minister coming to reside in China, any such minister must still wait for His Majesty’s decree?
The Chinese ministers replied that the article, without doubt, did mean that the minister would have to wait for His Majesty’s decree; and also that the words “present reception of the ministers of five powers, as set forth in this memorandum, all at one time,” meant this: that the ceremony of audience was of too grave importance to be performed without serious occasion; therefore, for the future, ministers coming to China for the first time, their mission being a mission in permanence, would have to wait, if they were ministers entitled to ask for audience, until His Majesty should signify his pleasure on the subject. It would not be possible for each individual minister, as he arrived here, to ask for audience. Such a course would show due consideration to the gravity of the ceremony.
The foreign ministers observed that, as the position of a minister newly arriving in China, with a letter of credence from his sovereign, would not be complete until he should have delivered that letter, it follows that the condition which it is sought to impose upon their successors would not be satisfactory to their governments.
The Chinese ministers explain the meaning of the article, as follows: Were the ceremony of the audience too frequently performed, it would be made light of. From what foreign ministers now say, were a minister to arrive this moon, and next moon another, and so on, month after month without intermission, each being received as soon as he arrived, not only would there be no leisure for so many audiences, but the ceremony, from its frequency, would be made light of, and this would constitute a strong objection to making the concession.
Foreign ministers rejoined that the right to name time and place for reception of ministers being reserved, exclusively to the Emperor by Art. V of this memorandum, excessive delay in according such a reception could not but be considered as evidence of an unfriendly feeling.
The Chinese ministers understood the words “collective audience of five representatives “to cause apprehension on the part of the foreign ministers that the day of reception might be too long postponed. But, on the other hand, it is contended that if every minister is to be received singly without any fixed time, (i. e., as soon as he presents himself,) the audience will be lightly regarded. What answer can be made to this?
Foreign ministers reply that what they apprehend, no doubt is the too long postponement of audiences. The decision of the time when ministers are to be received, however, rests with the Emperor, and the foreign ministers having before declared that excessive delay in according a reception could not but be considered evidence of unfriendly feeling, have no difficulty in stating that they do not arrogate to themselves the right of prescribing a term.
The Chinese ministers reply: This admission being made by the foreign ministers, it follows that the date of any minister’s reception in the time to come will depend upon the declared pleasure of the Emperor.
Art. IV. Before the audience the forms to be observed must he rehearsed.
Note. The foreign ministers asked if there would not be a written programme (or diagram) of the forms to be observed?
This, was assented to.
Art. V. Ministers will have to wait for His Majesty to declare the place where, as well as the moon, the day, and the hour at which they are to be received.
Note. The foreign ministers made no remark.
Art. VI. China having no missions abroad, foreign nations must not charge her with a failure to reciprocate the action of governments who send ministers to China. If at any future time China sends ministers abroad, even though provided with letters of credence, it will be at the option of the government to which they may be accredited to grant them audience, or to refuse it.
Note.—The foreign ministers observed that a Chinese minister, unless provided with a letter of credence, could not ask for an audience. The Chinese ministers replied, that if he went without a letter of credence, a Chinese minister could not, of course, [Page 182] ask for an audience; but that even if he had a letter of credence, he was not to insist upon an audience. The Chinese government did not consider this (the audience) the point of importance. Every state should do what best suited it.
(Revised postscript handed to Mr. Wade for communication to his colleagues, 9th May.)
The ministers of the yamên, having remarked that, by reason of the return home in ill-health of M. de Rehfues, minister for Germany, the number of foreign representatives who signed the collective note requesting audience of the Emperor was reduced from five to four, have since received from Mr. Vlangaly an official communication explaining the discrepancy.
M. de Rehfues, at an interview which he had with the ministers of the yamên when he was leaving Peking, in speaking of the audience, declared that the conferences on this subject would now proceed with the four ministers. Russia, America, England and France, just as if he were in Peking.
Is it certain that if the audience question be definitely settled in conference with them, M. de Rehfues will concur with them in opinion?
The ministers of Russia, America, England, and France, are certain that nothing is advanced by them in respect of the audience question that would be dissented from by the representative of any western power. So far as M. de Rehfues is personally concerned, from the very commencement of the present discussion he again and again declared his perfect readiness to accept whatever arrangements his four colleagues above enumerated might agree to.
The text of the foregoing articles having been carefully examined, is found to represent faithfully the sense of what has been said on either side in the conferences between the Chinese and the foreign ministers.
Letter addressed to Prince Kung and the ministers of the tsung li yamên by General Viangaly, Peking, April 12–24, 1873.
A collective note, signed by five foreign ministers, was handed in to your imperial highness and the ministers of the yamên in the month of February last, in which note the foreign ministers expressed their desire to offer, in the name of their respective governments, their congratulations to His Majesty the Emperor on his having assumed the government of his states.
The collective form of this note, and the signatures of the whole five foreign ministers residing in Peking at the time, shows how important they consider the question of their reception by His Majesty. The conferences that took place in consequence were, as you are aware, attended by all the ministers who had signed the note, when suddenly one of them, M. de Rehfues, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary for the German Empire, whose health soon after his arrival here had already begun to fail, became so seriously ill that the doctors ordered him to leave Peking at once, fearing that the climate here might have a fatal effect on his already shattered constitution. However much M. de Rehfues wished to prolong his stay here, in view of the important question that is about to be settled, still he was obliged to leave Peking and to return home.
All my honorable colleagues are as deeply grieved as I am myself at the sudden and unavoidable departure of the German minister, and they have charged me to express to your imperial highness and to the ministers of the yamên our regret that the number of the ministers who originally signed the note has become diminished, in view of so important a question as their reception by His Majesty the Emperor. Out of the five there remain but four, namely, the ministers of the United States, England, France, and myself, (Russia.)