Frederick F. Low to Hamilton Fish, March 13, 1873

No. 61. Mr. Low to Mr. Fish.

Sir: Referring to my No. 233, of 25th ultimo, I have now the honor to inform you of what has transpired since, concerning the same subject.

On the 1st instant the ministers of the yamên sent an identical note to each of the five legations, a translation of which is sent herewith. (Inclosure No. 1.) The tenor of this note betokened an attempt at delay, and nothing else; for if the illness of one of the nine members of the foreign office could be considered a valid reason for postponing the consideration of so important a question, it might be doubted whether we would see all the ministers in robust health at the same time for some months to come. The proposal to visit each of the foreign representatives separately was an indication of a desire to ascertain how far each would go in support of the request made in our collective note of 24th February.

In view of these considerations it seemed advisable to take steps to prevent useless delay, and also to preserve, as far as possible, solidarity of action. It was accordingly determined to send the senior interpreter (M. Bismarck) of the five legations to the yamên to say, in our names, that we had received their note; that we regretted to learn of the illness of the grand secretary, Wênsiang, and hoped it would not prove serious; that if, in the opinion of the yamên, it was necessary to have personal discussion about the subject of our collective note before returning a definite answer, and Wênsiang’s illness seemed likely to continue for some days, we should, to avoid delay, be compelled to ask the prince to meet us and discuss the matter. He was also instructed to say that, as our note was collective, we would prefer that the personal interview should be a conference at which all the signatories would be present. Herewith I beg to inclose the procès-verbal of M. Bismarck’s interview with the ministers on the occasion referred to. (Inclosure No. 2.)

On the 5th instant two secretaries of the yamên called on M. Bismarck, the interpreter of the German legation, to say that Wênsiang’s leave would expire on the 10th instant, and that after that date, if his health would permit, no time would be lost in appointing a day for an interview. The tone and manner of the secretaries, coupled with the indefinite and excusatory nature of their message, left the impression that their visit was a preliminary step to a further postponement of the discussion. From all the information obtainable it seemed probable that the yamên would resort to any and all means to delay action. It was, therefore, determined to send another collective note to the prince, calling his attention to our previous one, and impressing upon him the necessity of prompt action. A copy of this note in French and English is transmitted herewith. (Inclosure No. 3.)

On the 7th instant the yamên sent an identical note to all the legations, and subsequently the prince sent one to the ministers jointly, naming Tuesday, the 11th instant, as the time, and the Russian legation as the place, for a conference. Translations of these two notes are inclosed. (Inclosures 4 and 5.)

The substance of what was said at that interview is embodied in the memorandum herewith. (Inclosure b).

It is too early to say what will be the final result. It has been my opinion from the first that nothing less than the united purpose of all the governments represented here would cause the Emperor to accede to the request now made; nor have I seriously doubted that if the Chinese government could be given to understand clearly that the five powers before referred to were in accord upon this subject, and were determined to insist upon this public recognition of their equality, the point would be yielded.

Nothing has occurred, as yet, to change these opinions.

I have, &c.,

Memorandum of an interview between the foreign ministers and four ministers of the Tsung-li-Yamên at the Russian legation, March 11, 1873.

In response to a request made by Prince Kung, the ministers of Russia, Germany, the United States, England, and France, met the grand secretary, Wên Hsiang, and the ministers Mao, Shên, and Chung-how, at 1 o’clock, p.m., for the purpose of discussing the subject-matter of the joint notes addressed to the prince on the 24th February and 5th March.

After the usual compliments, the Russian minister (the doyen of the diplomatic body in Peking) announced that we were prepared to listen to what the Chinese ministers had to say with reference to the request embodied in the joint notes referred to.

Wên Hsiang then proceeded to say that the question of admitting foreign ministers to the personal audience of the Emperor was a very serious and somewhat difficult one to manage. The question of audience, he said, is, in itself, not difficult, as that could be easily arranged, provided the forms and ceremonies customary among the Chinese were observed by the foreign ministers. But as it was understood that these forms would not be acceptable, the prince had instructed him and his colleagues present to come and have a personal consultation, with a view of agreeing, if possible, upon a code of etiquette which would be mutually satisfactory. He also intimated that our demand had taken them somewhat by surprise, and that it was necessary to carefully consider all the points before presenting a memorial to the throne.

In reply we said that the question of audience could not be considered a new one, for if had been brought to the attention of the members of the yamên on many occasions during the last twelve years; nor could the government reasonably expect that there would be any delay in asking for it after the Emperor assumed personal control of the government.

We further said that the request contained in our note of 24th February was so reasonable, and our duty in the premises so clear, that it was not easy to perceive what preliminary discussion was necessary. But as it had been intimated that the ministers desired an interview, we had with pleasure assembled to hear and respectfully consider any propositions they might have to make.

Wên Hsiang, in response, said that it was the custom with their own officials to prostrate themselves when they appeared in the presence of the Emperor; and desired to know whether we would agree to kneel. If we would accept that as a compromise, the main difficulty would be removed, he thought.

We replied that such a proposition was quite inadmissible, that it was useless to discuss the reasons, as they had been so often repeated within the last ten years, that none of the high officials could be ignorant of them.

We were then asked whether we could not suggest some plan which might be considered a compromise.

To this we responded, that in western countries it was usual for the sovereign to stand when a foreign minister was presented, but that we should not insist upon that rule being observed in the present instance, and if it suited His Majesty better to be seated when we were presented, we should offer no objection. (It was plain that this suggestion did not seem to the Chinese ministers a concession.)

In support of our view of the case we cited the history of the Burl in game mission. We said that the Chinese embassadors were received by the heads of all the governments they visited; that when the audiences were granted, the embassadors were given to understand that when the Emperor of China assumed control reciprocal courtesies would be expected from him, and in some instances, particularly in the United States and in France, this was clearly stated in the written response to the request of the Chinese ministers for audiences.

This argument was met by the announcement that their embassadors, in making request for audience abroad, exceeded their instructions. To this we replied that we could not pretend to say what were their instructions. It was, however, reasonably certain that the imperial government was made aware of the details of the proceedings of its embassadors, and if, as was alleged, their ministers exceeded their instructions on so important a matter, the government should have promptly made known its disapproval.

Neither of the governments represented by the ministers present having up to this moment received any intimation that the course of the Chinese embassadors was disapproved, the imperial government was practically bound by the acts of its agents.

Wên Hsiang then said, “How can we justify ourselves to recommend the Emperor to receive you in the manner you desire, when the prince (the uncle of the Emperor) will, when introducing you, be obliged to kneel?” To this we responded by saying that, according to their theory, the government of China is paternal: the whole people are one family, of which the Emperor is the paternal head; that the princes and high ministers are a part of the family, while the foreign ministers occupy the relation of guests. If, however, this view should not appear reasonable, the prince might be relieved from the necessity of kneeling when presenting the foreign ministers. This proposition elicited no discussion or even response.

The grand secretary remarked, after a somewhat lengthy pause, “We are anxious to arrange this matter satisfactorily, and the prince hoped we would be able to agree upon some compromise as to the etiquette which would facilitate a settlement. As yet, we seem to have made little or no progress. Will you please take our proposition into careful consideration, and we will meet you again in a few days for further discussion.”

To this we responded that the five ministers present were in entire accord upon three points, which it was useless to discuss, namely—

• The propriety and necessity for asking personal audience of the Emperor.
• That it should be granted without unnecessary delay.
• That it could not be accepted upon condition of our kneeling or performing any other ceremony which would be derogatory to our own personal dignity or that of the governments we represent. We further said that when the government is prepared to assent to these primary conditions, we will then be prepared to discuss, in an amicable and conciliatory spirit, all minor points of etiquette which may be brought forward.

Some further discussion ensued without reaching any result, and the conference adjourned to meet again on the 14th instant, at the German legation.

The session continued about four hours.