Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 9, 1891

Mr. Denby to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Pelting, January 28, 1891. (Received March 27.)

No. 1236.]

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the protocol of the proceedings had at the meeting of the foreign representatives which is mentioned in my dispatch No. 1234, of January 24.

I inclose, also, a copy of the paper prepared by his excellency Mr. von Brandt, dean of the diplomatic body, which is to be delivered to the foreign office. The paper of the dean is a dignified and forcible statement of the views of the foreign representatives. It recites the fact that China has since 1873 been represented at several important courts and countries, and that the Chinese envoys, as well as their secretaries, interpreters, and attaches, have been received in separate audiences by the various chiefs of governments. It sets out that the audience question has not been pressed by the foreign powers for the reason that they desired that the Chinese Government should have time to learn thoroughly the practice and usage of those powers before the presentation of a demand for an audience was made.

It states that, while the foreign office now insists that the foreign representatives, should be received in mass, and that audiences shall not be granted to newly arrived ministers until the succeeding Chinese new year, nevertheless in 1873 and 1874 there were four separate audiences granted to four several ministers.

It suggests that, if these changes in the ceremonial can not be immediately made, a postponement might be had.

In consultation with my colleagues I have always strenuously insisted that there should be a separate audience of each minister, and that he should be accompanied by his own interpreter and secretaries. I insist on this course not only because it is the rule the world over, but also because it accentuates the recognition of the international equality of each and every nation with China, which is the chief moral element of an audience. I prefer a separate audience, also, because it gives me the sole right to decide what forms are to be accepted by me. It is possible that, as I represent a republican form of government, the representatives of monarchical governments might differ from me as to the ceremonial to be observed. I hope that no such difference will arise, but I would prefer to occupy an independent position. As the matter stands, I am one of six ministers who must all go together to the audience and must all observe the same ceremonial. Being only one-sixth of the whole number, I am, to some extent, bound to any decision that my colleagues may make.

I am not, however, so wedded to the idea of a separate audience as to prevent my acceding to the proposition of a joint audience on this particular occasion rather than to reject an audience altogether. The occasion is novel, and the Emperor has taken the initiative, and if the other conditions are acceptable I am prepared to accept a joint audience for this one occasion. But, as the whole tenor of the ceremonial as proposed is based on the forms agreed on in 1873, and as in 1874 there were in fact separate audiences, the yamén has no right now to insist that separate audiences shall not be granted to ministers as they arrive. It must be understood that we are now probably settling the mode and manner of conducting an audience for all time to come. The tenacity with which China holds to precedents is shown by the stand now taken that all things shall be done as they were done in 1873. If we yield to the point now that only one audience can be had each year, we will greatly embarrass our successors and we will retard the progressive movement in China, of which the proposed audience is a shining indication.

As you will see by the inclosures, it is likely that a postponement of the audience may be had. Time will therefore probably be afforded in which I can receive your instructions as to the course to be pursued. To enable you to consider the situation, as well as to preserve on my archives a complete history of the treatment of the audience question, I have adopted the plan of sending to you an account of each step in the discussion as it occurs.

In my dispatch already cited I asked for a new letter of credence. To the reasons then given I may be permitted to add that, in a matter so novel and important as an audience, it occurred to me that the President himself would prefer that a letter of credence signed by himself should be delivered to the Emperor rather than one signed by his predecessor. I was in no sense actuated by any imaginable personal or private matter.

I have, etc.,

Charles Denby.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 1236.]

Protocol of the meeting of the foreign representatives at the German legation on January 23, 1891.

• Present: The representatives of Belgium, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States.

His excellency Col. Denby having read to the meeting a statement of the results of his interview with the members of the tsung-li yamén, on the 21st instant, and having also communicated to the meeting the translation of a paper received from the yamén on the 22st instant, referring to the ceremonial to be observed at the proposed audience, both papers being annexed to this protocol, the representatives present were unanimously of opinion that the declarations and proposals of the yamén were unacceptable, the ceremonial to be observed at the audience in 1891 being exactly the same as that for the audience in 1873 (see memorandum presented by Prince Kung to the foreign representatives of June 26, 1873), with the exception that five bows are now demanded instead of three.

Mr. von Brandt having so far recovered as to be able to call upon the yamén, was then instructed to ask for an interview with the prince and ministers of the yamén, and to place before them the remarks embodied in the annexed paper as representing the unanimous views of the foreign representatives now resident at Peking. He was also authorized to have a Chinese translation of this paper made, to be left with the prince and ministers to serve as an aide-mémoire. Mr. von Brandt was equally authorized, if an opportunity offered itself, to suggest to the prince and ministers that if further time for reflection seemed necessary the yamén might write a polite note to the representatives, informing them that, on account of the death of his imperial highness Prince Chun, a postponement of the audience for some time had become necessary.

The representatives were of opinion that such a course would be preferable to a perhaps angry and acrimonious discussion of the question, besides giving them the time to place a full statement of the case, as well as of their opinions, before their respective governments, and enabling them to receive instructions on the points in question.

Cordial thanks having been expressed to his excellency Col. Denby for the trouble taken and the work done, the meeting then adjourned.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 1236.]

Aide-mémoire to be given to the ministers of the tsung-li yamén.

Since foreign representatives were for the first time received by His Majesty the Emperor of China in 1873 eighteen years have passed away, and during this time the international relations of China have undergone a great change. While in 1873 the ministers of the tsung-li yamén thought it necessary to make certain reserves with regard to the eventual reception of Chinese ministers by foreign courts or governments (part vi of the protocol of May 15, 1873), since then not only a large number of Chinese envoys have been received by the sovereigns and rulers of treaty powers, in order to allow them to present their letters of credence or recall, but also the members of their missions, including secretaries, attaches, and interpreters, have been allowed to enjoy the same advantages and privileges in official intercourse which are granted by the different courts and governments to the members of legations accredited with them. The position is therefore to-day an entirely other one than it was in 1873. Notwithstanding this change in the relative treatment of missions accredited to China or to the treaty powers, the representatives of treaty powers accredited to Peking have abstained from raising the audience question, not only during the minority of His Majesty the Emperor, but also after His Majesty had assumed the government. In acting thus they have been animated by the desire not to create discussions and difficulties, but to give the Chinese Government time and opportunity to study at leisure and get acquainted with the rights and privileges of international law and usage granted to the representatives accredited by one sovereign ruler to another.

The audience question having now been raised by the Chinese Government itself, it becomes the duty of the foreign representatives to draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the changes which the altered state of circumstances renders necessary. The Chinese Government must be well aware that the reception of the foreign ministers in 1873 did not produce all the effects that were expected from it; the form in which it had taken place was severely criticised by foreign public opinion, while Chinese public opinion saw in it an assumption of superiority on the part of China which, though certainly very far from the minds of the Chinese statesmen actively engaged in the question, produced a decidedly unfavorable impression with regard to the furtherance of friendly relations upon large classes of the Chinese population. The ministers, members of the yamén at that time, were themselves perfectly aware of these facts, and on more than one occasion the principal ones among them declared that the manner in which the audience had taken place ought to be considered as a first step towards regulating the external forms of international intercourse between China and the treaty powers, as far as the reception by the sovereign and the presentation of the letters of credence by the foreign representatives were concerned, and that changes in the ceremonial then observed were by no means excluded. The possibility of such changes has, however, not only been theoretically admitted, but it has taken place practically, while the tsung-li yamén in article iii of the protocol of May 19, 1873, still maintained the principle that the reception of the ministers of five powers, such as it was then proposed to take place, should be made to serve as a precedent. In the following year the newly accredited Russian minister, Mr. de Butzow, and the Belgian minister, Mr. Serruys, were received alone in audience by His Majesty the Emperor Tung Chih, and the same thing took place in the same year when the newly accredited minister of Japan, Mr. Yanaginara, and of the United States, Mr. Avery, though being received on the same day, had separate audiences. The right of the foreign ministers to present their letters of credence in separate audiences has therefore been fully recognized and acted upon in China, and the representatives now accredited in China, some of whom have been waiting patiently for many years to present their letters of credence, see no reason to recede from the position recognized by the Chinese Government in the case of their predecessors. The foreign representatives can at the same time only repeat the declarations already made by their predecessors in 1873 with regard to ministers newly arriving in China, i. e., that while the right to name the time of reception must, of course, he reserved to His Majesty, excessive delay in according such a reception would not but be considered as evidence of an unfriendly feeling. They must, with regard to this point, and in order that their action may not be misunderstood and considered as precluding a foreign minister afterwards arriving from exercising his right of claiming and obtaining an audience in order to present his letters of credence, insist upon a formal and satisfactory declaration from the yamén that such will be in future the course followed.

They must also point out that, great changes in the international relations between China and the treaty powers having taken place in the meanwhile, the forms observed in the audiences in 1873 and 1874 ought to be submitted to a revision, and, where necessary, to an alteration already rendered obvious by the fact that, while these ministers were only received for the presentation of their letters of credence, the imperial edict issued in this year includes also chargéd d’affaires, i. e., representatives not furnished with such documents.

If the tsung-li yamén should not consider themselves authorized to enter upon a discussion on this question without previously taking the order of His Majesty the Emperor, the representatives request the yamén to do so and place the contents of this aide-mémoire before His Majesty. They can, at the same time, only state that if reasons unknown to them should prevent the Chinese Government from placing the representatives of treaty powers in China upon a footing similar to that accorded to Chinese ministers abroad, they should be willing to leave full time for consideration to the Chinese Government; but if the tsung-li yamén should insist upon the acceptance of a programme declared inadmissible by the foreign representatives, the latter would find themselves in the impossibility of accepting an audience under conditions not in accordance with the rules of international right and courtesy.