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, [Page 364] 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, [Page 365] 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.,
[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 [Page 366] 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.
