De Lallemand to Sir Rutherford Alcock, August 9, 1868

Mr. Lallemand to Sir Rutherford Alcock

Mr. Minister and Dear Colleague: Your letter of the 5th instant arrived on the 7th. In replying, I have waited until our dean should communicate the documents of which you spoke, which you had sent him. I have received them this morning, and I now proceed to give my opinion respecting them upon first impressions.

To put foreign commerce and Chinese commerce upon the same footing as far as possible is a just and worthy project—an encouraging one—and such is the tendency of the various measures proposed by the yamun. But would the ameliorations upon the present state of affairs, which would certainly result from the sum total of these measures, if carried into execution, be, or appear to be, sufficiently compensated by the raising of the duties upon silks and tea to the double of the present tariff? I somewhat doubt it, for the following reason: we know by experience, or we think we know, that the yamun, or rather the government of Peking, has no great control over the administration of the provinces; and that in the treatment—good or bad—of the commercial problem, it would be always the provincial functionaries who would play the principal part. We are consequently tempted to say: those ameliorations are offered us in good faith and good will by the yamun, as we are very ready to believe; but from the will to the deed, to the actual execution, there is an interval, for we know that the yamun’s authority is not preponderant in the provinces, and that what it here promises us cannot perchance be executed, except very imperfectly, at a distance from Peking. What will be fully carried out, if we agree to it, is the collection of the double duty on teas and silks. We are then exposed, in conceding without any precaution the doubling of the duty, to pay down and without drawbacks for the advantages which have been given us on paper at Peking, (though in good faith,) but whose execution is uncertain and subject to eventualities. I should then be of the opinion, if the doubling of the duties on teas and silks were to be conceded, that it should only be after two years probation of the promised ameliorations, and after being assured that they have become a fact. This would be the price and the recompense of the improved régime which the Chinese had commenced.

As to the concessions offered, they are small enough we must admit. The right of navigating by oar or sail on the interior waters is scarcely a concession. It is the steam navigation that we want, and that we begin to need. Even supposing that it cannot be permitted upon the canals, which we may easily admit, it ought at least to be permitted upon the great lakes, such as the Poyang and others, where the uncertainty of the winds causes much time to be lost by the sailing convoys. It would at least be necessary that the use there of small steam-tugs should be authorized.

I also consider as very meager and very timid the terms used by the yamun to open the foreigners access to the coal mines. “The employ of foreign material will be permitted, and the presence of foreigners for the exploitation of the coal mines.” Could it not have said clearly: “The government authorizes foreigners to exploit coal mines, using their own material,” and to make the establishments necessary for this purpose?

The right of temporary residence in the interior is not a concession. We already possess it; at least, according to the terms of the French treaty, there is no doubt about it. But as no use has been made of the privilege up to the present time, it is not a bad idea that an imperial decree should render public this right. The only limitation to it which we could admit, in my opinion, is that of owning real estate in full proprietorship; the privilege of having houses and stores, and of residing in them, ought to be complete.

With the reserve made in these observations, I ask nothing better than to recommend to the cabinet at Paris in their totality the propositions which you have received from the yamun, and it is probable that if they satisfy the (English) Foreign Office there will be no greater difficulty at Paris than at London. I do not think, however, that we shall be disposed to renounce expressly and beforehand the right of revising our treaty in 1870; it does not appear to me that it would be for the common interest that we should do so. There are besides, in the treaty, one or two clauses relating to the liberty and security of missionaries and Christians, which are not explicit enough, and which have not had the effect we contemplated.

I should be of opinion, if my advice were asked, that these clauses should be revised; but they relate only to France, and do not affect the condition of other nations which have treaties with China. * * * * * *

With a thousand kindly compliments,