No. 139.
Mr. Seward
to Mr. Evarts.
Peking, December 11, 1879. (Received February 19, 1880.)
Sir: My engagements have been such since my return from the United States that I have not been able to address you in regard to several matters which are of serious concern in this part of the world. One of these is the pending dispute between China and Japan regarding the Lew Chew Islands.
[Page 195]It is not my purpose in writing to you now to make an extended statement. It is by no means easy to learn here either the position of the Japanese Government or the considerations upon which they rely to justify their policy towards the Lew Chewans and toward the Chinese in respect to the Lew Che wan matter. You will be advised, however, of the views of the Japanese, and of the facts which constitute their case by Mr. Bingham. In presenting to you, therefore, considerations which tell in favor of the Chinese, I shall put you in position to reach your own conclusions upon the whole matter.
As I understand the ministers of the foreign office here, they do not claim that Lew Chew is an integral part of their empire. They assert that the island kingdom has paid tribute to China, and in this and other ways sustained a relationship savoring of dependency. They admit, on the other hand, that the kingdom has been subjected also to certain requirements o£ the Japanese, which have become, as it were, constitutional, and they ask only that the status of the islands shall revert to what it was, as so indicated, before the recent steps taken to make it an integral part of the Japanese Empire.
From their own point of view this proposition is a conciliatory one. They are either unaware that Japan has ever made conquests in Lew Chew, or they ignore those conquests as not having been followed by possession and control. A similar claim of conquest was set up by the Japanese over Formosa five years ago, when they invaded the island ostensibly to punish the aborigines for the maltreatment of some of their own people, while all the world knows that Formosa has been perfectly free from Japanese domination for a very long period. The case, as between Japan and Lew Chew, is undoubtedly stronger, although certainly the Japanese have not, until recently, exercised any very direct or positive interference in the affairs of the island kingdom.
Leaving aside, however, the merits of the claims set up by Japan, of which, as I have indicated, I may not be perfectly well informed, I proceed to state the nature of the relationship which has long existed between China and Lew Chew. This relationship is very perfectly indicated in a series of papers translated from the Chinese by Dr. Williams and published in the “Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,” for 1866.
The first of these is a request for investiture made by Shang Han, King of Lew Chew, to the Emperor, Chia Ching, in 1807. It begins as follows:
Your Majesty’s servant, Shang Han, grandson of the King of the Central Mountin Lew Chew, respectfully memorializes the throne, requesting that he be confirmed in his succession to the princely station, which will at once encourage him in his loyalty and render illustrious the great statutes of the empire.
You will notice upon reference to this petition, or paper, a copy of which I inclose, that the King of Lew Chew declares that although “his little State lies in the far distance, and is only a foot of ground for size, yet even away in mid ocean it has an established government, and during successive generations its rulers, having received investiture, have guarded the frontiers”; and, having made this preamble, proceeds to name his ancestors who have received such recognition from the Imperial Government. These begin with Shang Chi, “who was indebted to the favor of the Emperor Shun Chi for conferring on him the dignity of King in A. D. 1655,” and then are named, successively, Shang Ching, who received investiture from Kanghsi in 1683; Shang Ching also from Kang Hsi in 1719; Shang Muh, from Chien Lung in 1757; and Shang Cheh from Chia Ching in 1801.
[Page 196]The investiture of Shang Han, applied for in 1807, was completed in 1809. At the same time an imperial rescript was sent to Lew Chew from Peking, confirming the father of Shang-han in the regular line of kings, although he had died before he had had the opportunity to make the usual application for investiture. More lately, in 1866, Shang Ta, who had come to the throne, applied for investiture, which was granted to him. From 1655 to 1866, therefore, the Lew Chewan kings received investiture from China.
The investiture so granted was not a careless ceremony or performed secretly. The procedure followed in the instance of Shang Han in 1809 will illustrate the point. The petition asking for investiture was carried to Peking by two envoys, and two imperial envoys were appointed to carry to Lew Chew the imperial proclamation of investiture, and other official documents. A copy of the proclamation is appended to this dispatch, and also a copy of the imperial patent, or commission. Certain presents were also sent to Lew Chew. The manner in which the action of the Imperial Government was received is stated in a further representation sent up to the throne of China by the King, as follows:
Your servant, attended by the whole body of officials and dignitaries, and a concourse of people, met the envoys in the Pavilion of Grace, where we humbly implored long life and perpetual peace to the august sacred person. I then received the proclamation and patent, and deposited them in the envoy’s hall. Having selected a lucky day [October 1], I first took the mandate commanding that the late Shang Ching, my father, be installed as King in the regular succession, and then the edict ordering that worship be paid (on your behalf) to the former King, Shang Wan, and to my late father, Shang Ching, and fulfilled every particular. On the 15th of November I reverently received the proclamation and patent of investiture, which confirms your servant as King in the Central Mount; and accepted the dragon-embroidered satins, and also the variegated silks and other articles, conferred on the Queen. Your servant then, with all the officials around him, prostrated ourselves on the ground to give thanks for such bounty. I then begged the envoys to let me have the two documents to put in the archives of the kingdom, among its precious things, and asked them to examine the old records to satisfy themselves that all had been done properly. They did so, and I have put them in our treasury.
It would be difficult to conceive a procedure more formally directed to the purpose than that which has been described. The application to the Emperor of China is precise in all its parts. The Emperor’s responses are equally precise, and the ceremonies at the capital of Lew Chew are performed in the presence of “the whole body of the officials and dignitaries and a large concourse of people.”
It is not possible, then, that there is any mistake about the matter. The kings of Lew Chew having observed for a period of two hundred years the practices described, acknowledged in the clearest manner a certain dependence upon the Imperial Government inconsistent with the idea that the state was a feudatory of any other power.
The first case of investiture mentioned in the petition of Chang Han took place in 1655. It was a “remote ancestor” of his who was so favored, but it appears from Chinese records, as Dr. Williams points out in the article to which I have already referred, that a Lew Chewan prince sent an embassy to China in 1373, and that the Emperor Yung-loh bestowed investiture on Bu-nei, King of Lew Chew, in the year 1400. Dr. Williams mentions further that during the Ming dynasty (1368 to 1644) Lew Chewan embassies came to China sometimes twice a year, sometimes once in five years, but that during the present dynasty they have come once in two years. The embassies thus sent up have not been purely political, and the tribute which has been brought to China has not been a money payment, significant of dependence, or a feudatory [Page 197] condition. And herein consists one of the most interesting facts in the relations of China with the surrounding petty states.
Manchuria, the home of the present dynasty; Mongolia, divided into a number of jurisdictions, all owing direct allegiance to China;’Thibet, in which an imperial commissioner is resident, each have relations with China peculiar to themselves; but Corea, Lew Chew, Siam, Annam, and Burmah have sustained relations with their great neighbor which, although singular, may be described in a few words.
It appears to have been the practice of these states to send up complimentary missions to Peking. They may be called complimentary because they have been voluntary both as respects their times and the matter carried with them.
The embassies have brought, in fact, what may be more properly styled presents than tribute, the extent or value of which has depended upon the ability or generosity of the given ruler, and not at all upon the demands of the Chinese Government. And not only is this true, but it is true, further, that the Chinese practice has been to give presents in return. The latter point you will find illustrated in the papers regarding the investiture of Chang han sent herewith.
It has been suggested that the relationship thus indicated has an analogy to the middle-age experiences of Europe, when the Pope was considered in a manner the dispenser of imperial honors, but the example is not a good one, for the reason that the prerogative of the papacy was held to grow out of the regency conferred upon the Pope as the representative of Heaven upon earth, while the regard paid to the Emperor of China would seem to be a natural recognition of his position as an earthly potentate of extraordinary sway, and his benevolence in leaving to the petty states around him a complete autonomy of their own.
It is not too much to say that it has been within the power of China for a very long period to overrun and subdue these petty states. The fact that she has not done so is creditable to her rulers, and might very well draw from them expressions of gratitude and respect. A great people filling all their territory to the limit of its sustaining power, but remaining for centuries self-contained, regardful of their own dignity and place, but regardful also of the rights of the petty powers about them, is a spectacle not very common in the history of the world. It is one upon which we may pause to raise the question whether a state capable of such conduct has not, for some reason, a poise and balance of judgment and temper greater than we have been in the habit of attributing to her, and which entitles her to a large measure of respect and esteem.
Something similar to the deferential intercourse observed between China and the surrounding petty states has existed between the Turkish Empire and the inferior powers of Central Asia. Vambéry says:
It was the practice in the middle ages for the three Khanates of Turkestan to receive as investiture from the Khalif of Bagdad a sort of court office. This old system has not been abandoned even at the present day, and the princes, on their accession to the throne, are wont still to solicit, through the medium of an extraordinary embassy to Stamboul, these honorary distinctions. The Khan of Khiva assumes rank as Cupbearer; the Emir of Bokhara as Reis (guardian of religion); and the Khan of Khokand as Constable. * * * But the bond which unites them with Constantinople goes no further.
The analogy is not perfect, of course, but it illustrates the disposition of rulers of less importance in Asia to look up to those whose position is of greater importance, and to place themselves in an attitude of respect by assenting to forms which imply a certain dependence.
I am not sure that the Chinese Government would, admit that their relations with Lew Chew do not indicate a more decided dependence than [Page 198] I have described. The facts, however, are those which I have set forth. That is to say, the Chinese have no resident officers in Lew Chew; they assess no taxes there, nor any determined tribute; they do not require the Lew Che wans to assist them in war; they do not consider themselves bound to assist the Lew Chewans; they do not concern themselves about her internal affairs; they receive presents from the King, and they make presents in return. On the other hand, their investiture of the Lew Chewan kings is something more than a mere recognition of them. It is a reward for loyalty on their part, and a declaration of a disposition to respect their nationality, and the sovereignty of their rulers. We find the situation singular, no doubt, but so, in our eyes, are many things which are common in Asia. So long as Asia is practically polytheistic, polygamic, and autocratic, while the West is monotheistic, monogamic, and constitutional, we need not feel surprise at divergences of any sort between their ways and our ways. While this is the relationship between China and Lew Chew which existed for a very long period, and which has only been put an end to by recent acts of Japan, against which the Lew Chewans have protested, China acknowledges, on the other hand, that Lew Chew has been required to deliver to the Prince of Satsuma, in Japan, for a very long period, an annual contribution of produce, understood to be 8,000 piculs or about 500 tons of rice. It may be stating the case too strongly to say that China makes this acknowledgment, but at any rate, as I understand the matter, she does not deny that this was the case. Beyond this, however, China makes no admissions, and so far as I can judge, believes there are no admissions which she should make.
In asking, therefore, that Lew Chew should be permitted to revert to its ancient constitution, the Chinese would expect the Lew Chewans to send up their missions as in the past, and to grant investiture to their kings, but would not object to the continuance of the tribute heretofore sent to Japan.
It is very possible that China and Japan may not be able to maintain such an attitude toward Lew Chew as I have indicated. The Japanese could receive their tribute, but they might, at any moment, object that the simple recognition of the Lew Chewan King, implied in the ancient form of investiture, had been wrested from its proper significance, and used to reduce the King to vassalage. If, then, the two governments would agree to give up all claims in Lew Chew, the one to abandon its demand for an insignificant amount of tribute, and the other the political forms which have been customary, each agreeing to respect the independence of the islands, the situation would be more logical in our view, and less likely to lead to further complications.
The Chinese may or may not attach political importance to the possession of Lew Chew by themselves or by the Japanese. I do not think that they have considered that part of the question, or care about it. It can add nothing to the importance of either state to reduce the islands to its control. They are small and distant and their defense would be of serious concern in case of a foreign war. But with the Chinese the point of pride is tenaciously held. They believe that Japan, without prior consultation with them, and by methods pursued in a covert manner, has subjected to its control a petty state, their dependency. It is deemed an affront to them in the face of their own people and the world, as well as an outrage upon the innocent islanders. So the Chinese do not take the matter at all quietly, and their resentment is of a sort which will last a long time.
The interference of General Grant took place under these circumstances. [Page 199] He was appealed to with great anxiety by China, and he promised to speak to the Japanese, not by way of discussion or condemnation of their acts, but to represent the unwisdom of any policy which would estrange the two countries. He was on safe ground in promising to do this much for China, and he appears to have performed his task with tact. What may come of it cannot yet be told.
I have, &c.,