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 .
Peking , March 2, 1891. (Received April 21.)
Sir: I have the honor to inclose copies of the following documents relating to the audience question: A protocol of the meeting of the foreign representatives held at the German legation February 13, 1891; a protocol of the meeting of the foreign representatives held at the German legation February 21, 1891; a memorandum of the conference held at the tsung-li yamên February 22, 1891; a protocol of a meeting of the foreign representatives held at the German legation February 23,1891.
These papers, with those that preceded them, complete a full history of the treatment of the audience question. As they were necessarily parts of the records of this legation, and as the archives of the State Department ought to correspond with the archives here, I deemed it best to send a complete copy of each paper.
Some of them, it must be admitted, are voluminous, but no one could foretell at the outset what the issue of the negotiations would be. Foreign governments and the whole civilized world were expected to pass upon our actions here. If the result should have proved unfavorable, it was best to lay before our respective governments a full report of our action, in order that an intelligent judgment might be pronounced thereon. I submit these reasons for pursuing the course I did.
The audience has been fixed for Thursday, the 5th of this month.
I have, etc.,
Protocol of the meeting of the foreign representatives held on the 18th of February, 1891.
- Present: The representatives of Belgium, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States.
Mr. von Brandt, on placing the protocol of the last meeting, which had taken place on February 6, before his colleagues, said that some of the remarks and additions with which the protocol had come back to him might fairly be considered as representing more the views as held by some of the representatives than as expressed by [Page 383] them at the meeting in question. He, for his part, had, however, no objection against embodying in the protocol remarks and views brought forward if his colleagues agreed to it.
As for himself, the observations and statements added to the protocol had proved to him that the difference of opinion between his colleagues and himself was much greater than he had supposed it to be after the meeting of the 6th instant. In fact, all of his colleagues had approved of the propositions made by Mr. Pansa, which might be summed up thus: That either a pledge should be obtained from the yamên to the effect that future audiences would be held in the palace, or, if it were generally agreed that the request for a reception inside the palace would at present be inadvisable, that the protocol to be signed between the yamên and the foreign representatives should not mention the western gardens or any place in particular, but simply declare that another hall should be provided. With regard to the first point, Mr. von Brandt remarked that, in his opinion, there was little or no difference between demanding that the reception to take place now should be held in the palace or asking that the next audience should take place there. The objections of the Chinese ministers would be equally strong to both proposals, and, in his opinion, was unsurmountable; he had already before expressed to his colleagues his opinion that it was highly inadvisable to demand to be received within the palace proper, as he felt certain that such demand would be refused by the Chinese, while, on the other hand, once made, it could not and ought not to be abandoned by the foreign representatives. If such, however, was the case, the question of the place of reception ought to be made the main issue, as in Mr. Pansa’s first proposal. He would, if his colleagues, in the face of the nearly absolute certainty of a refusal from the Chinese ministers, decided to make the whole audience question depend upon that of the place of reception, not separate himself from them, though he was certain not only of a failure, but also of not being approved very heartily by his Government; but, as he had said before, any such demand ought to be made as a condition sine qua non, and, made, not abandoned on any pretext whatever.
The second proposal of Mr. Pansa was one of practical management. A protocol setting forth the conditions under which the audience was to take place was considered; the draft of such protocol would have to be drawn up either by the foreign negotiators or by the Chinese ones. In the first case it would be very easy to omit the mention of any particular place, and if the Chinese did not object to this the question would be settled according to the wishes of the foreign representatives. But if, instead of this happening, the Chinese inserted in their draft the mention of the western gardens, or insisted upon the insertion of that phrase in the draft prepared by the foreign negotiator, what was the latter to do? He could either attempt to parry the proposals by more or less unmeaning phrases, each of which would render the Chinese more suspicious and obstinate, or take the bull by the horns and declare that the phrase objected to ought to be omitted, in order that the possibility of the choice of the palace proper for the next audience might not be prejudiced, and thus the whole question of admittance to the palace would be opened on a side issue which would not allow the foreign representatives to make a condition sine qua non of it. Their position would therefore be a much more unfavorable one, as, if the palace question had been made the principal one from the beginning, and the Chinese being certainly aware of this, too, it would be nearly impossible that the foreign representatives should not be beaten on this point. Besides, Mr. von Brandt was of opinion that it was utterly indifferent if the mention of “in the western gardens was inserted into the protocol or not. The question if future audiences were to take place in the palace proper depended in nowise upon a small ambiguity in a paper, and still less so because the mental reservation it implied for the palace in the minds of the foreign representatives would certainly exist just as much against it in the minds of the Chinese. The final solution of the question, according to the wishes of the foreign representatives and the usages of international comity, would be brought about by the Chinese mind opening itself more and more to the necessities of the political situation or by one or more governments insisting upon compliance with international customs. These were his views. They might be erroneous as far as the amount of insistance to be expected from the Chinese was concerned, but they imposed upon him the duty to request his colleagues to select somebody else to conduct the further negotiatons with the yamên. He felt that he would not do justice to a programme which he considered as not applicable to the case, and he did not wish to see failure attributed to a want of zeal or sympathy on his part; he did not desire to separate himself from his colleagues, and he was ready to give the yamên any reason for his noncontinuance of the negotiations which his colleagues might consider as most favorable to their course, but he thought at the same time that the responsibility and the credit for the issue of the negotiations ought to remain with those who drafted the programme to be followed, not with those who objected to it. Sir John Walsham remarked that, while he was of Mr. von Brandt’s opinion with regard to the inadvisability of demanding directly or indirectly [Page 384] that the audience should be held in the palace proper, and while he fully understood and appreciated the practical difficulties which might arise from an attempt at placing Mr. Pansa’s second proposal before the yamên, he thought, nevertheless, that it should be carried out at any risk. The Tzü-Kuang-Ko had rightly or wrongly got a very bad name, and not only foreign, but also Chinese, public opinion had pointed to the use of that place as one of the principal reasons why the audience of 1873 had not been considered a success. Under these circumstances, it was a concession on the part of the foreign representatives, and not a small one, that they had agreed, at the request of the Chinese ministers, and for the reasons given by them, to accept that hall once more as the place where the next audience was to take place. The foreign representatives having thus proved their wish to meet the yamên as far as possible, had undoubtedly the right to expect some concession from the yamên’s side, too. The foreign representatives did not wish to insert in the protocol that a certain place should serve for the next audience; but they objected to the insertion in the protocol of a phrase limiting the choice of such place in the future to the grounds outside of the palace, which would, theoretically at least, prevent any further progress in that direction. After a prolonged conversation on this question, Mr. Pansa proposed that in order to ascertain the views of the meeting a vote should be taken on the question if the palace proper should be mentioned or not to the yamên as the place for future audiences and receptions. This being done, the proposal to mention the palace was unanimously negatived. The discussion being resumed on the second point, Mr. Eistelhueber proposed that it might recommend itself not to take any definite decision at present, but to wait for the result of Mr. von Brandt’s next interview with the yamên; and Mr. Pansa suggested that it might perhaps obviate some of the difficulties apprehended by Mr. von Brandt if at the next meeting he would present to the yamên a written statement on the question at issue such as ought to be inserted in the final protocol according to the views and wishes of the foreign representatives; this way of proceeding would throw upon the yamên the necessity of raising objections against the proposed draft, and would thus allow the foreign representatives further time for discussion and decision. This proposal being agreed upon, the meeting separated.
- M. von Brandt.
- Charles Denby.
- John Walsham.
- K. Otori.
- A. Pansa.
- J. H. Ferguson.
- R. G. di Uribari.
- C. Kleinménow.
- P. Ristelhueber.
- Chas. Michel.
Protocol of the meeting field at the German legation on February 21, 1891.
- Present: The representatives of Belgium, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States.
Mr. von Brandt having read the annexed memorandum of his interview with the ministers of the yamên on the 19th instant, his action was approved. After a short discussion the annexed programme of the rules to be observed at the audiences and general receptions was approved, and Mr. von Brandt was authorized to place it before the ministers of the yamên at their next meeting as the unanimous expression of opinion of the foreign representatives to be embodied in the final protocol to be signed by the Chinese ministers and foreign representatives. The meeting then separated.
Memorandum of the conference held at the tsung-li yamên on February 22, 1891, between the Chinese ministers Hsü Keng Shen, Sun-yi-wên, Liao Show Ling, Hsü Twn-i, and Chang Yin-huan and Mr. Von Brandt, the latter on the part and for the foreign representatives.
The Chinese ministers having taken cognizance of the draft of the proposed protocol submitted to them by Mr. von Brandt, Sun-yi-wên asked on what subjects, other autograph letters of sovereigns or rulers might be addressed to the Emperor. Being answered that they would refer to marriages, births, or deaths, the clause was accepted by the Chinese ministers without any further observations on their part. Sun-yi-wên then asked if at the general reception the members of the diplomatic [Page 385] body having taken up their positions could not bow to the Emperor at the same time and together. He was answered by Mr. von Brandt that there was no objection to this, but that it would be desirable that the Emperor should acknowledge this salutation by returning it. The Chinese ministers agreed to this without discussion. They then expressed the wish that the number and places of bows to be made at the general reception should be expressed a little more clearly in the proctocol, to which Mr. von Brandt saw no objection. Sun-yi-wên having remarked that Prince Ching would not be in a position to hand the text of his majesty’s speech to Mr. von Brandt on the spot, as it could not be written down beforehand, but that it would be afterwards forwarded to him, Mr. von Brandt replied that he had understood Prince Ching to have said that the text of His Majesty’s speech would be handed over to him on the spot, but that he saw no objection to its being sent to him afterwards. The final text of the protocol thus having been agreed upon, the Chinese ministers promised that two copies of it signed by the members of the yamên would be forwarded to him, to be signed in their turn by the foreign representatives, one of the copies to be returned to the yamên, the other to kept by the doyen. The Chinese ministers finally asked Mr. von Brandt to request his colleagues to forward the copies and translations of their credentials and addresses to the yamên with as little delay as possible, promising in their turn to inform each legation separately four or five days in advance of the day fixed for the audience. The meeting then separated under mutual congratulations upon the satisfactory result arrived at.
Proctocol of the meeting held at the German legation on February 23, 1891.
- Present: the representatives of Belgium, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States.
Mr. von Brandt having read the memorandum on his interview with the yamên on the 22d instant, and the protocol as finally agreed upon, the latter and his action were approved. Before separating, the foreign representatives voted to the dean unanimously their profound thanks for his services and their appreciation of the ability displayed by his excellency in the conduct of these negotiations.
- M. v. Brandt.
- Charles Denby.
- John Walsham.
- K. Otori.
- a. Pansa.