Memorandum forwarded by Prince Kung and the ministers of the yamên to the ministers of Russia, Germany, the United States, England, and France, March 28, March 28, 1873

Memorandum forwarded by Prince Kung and the ministers of the yamên to the ministers of Russia, Germany, the United States, England, and France, March 28, 1873.

The memorandum received from the minister on 21st March refers again to the passage in the 4th article of the British treaty regarding the privileges to be accorded to the British minister.

It has already been explained by the prince that in respect of privileges the Chinese government can only treat foreign ministers with the forms heretofore in vogue in China; it cannot adopt new forms.

Foreign ministers have on different occasions in past times argued this question, and the yamên has as often contended that, owing to the difference between the forms and customs of China and foreign nations, the subject would require mature deliberation before a satisfactory arrangement could be looked for.

In the various discussions that have taken place since the receipt of the collective note it has never been asserted that the proposition had taken the yamên by surprise. We only argued the necessity of deliberation, the reasons for which have again and again been stated.

That the ceremony proposed by the yamên is proper between equal nations, and that in exacting it China does not by this indicate that she regards the treaty powers as dependent states, has been so fully explained in the reply to the first memorandum presented by the ministers that it is unnecessary to repeat what has been said upon this point.

As to the mission of Mr. Burlingame and the ministers Chih and Sun, Mr. Burlingame was informed by a dispatch from the yamên, when going away, that inasmuch as the ceremonials of China and foreign nations differ, and as China could not consent to make changes which might be considered as affecting her dignity, even if exceptional privileges were accorded the mission abroad, the Chinese government would not be able to make such proceedings a precedent for her action. In the different countries visited by the mission its reception, in whatever form it may have been accorded, was the spontaneous act of the governments visited; and each government knew at the time that in China the customs and ceremonies were different. The Chinese government put no constraint upon them, and when the foreign ministers argue that the imperial government, having sent missions to the treaty powers, must now be acquainted with the rules of intercourse prevailing between western nations, the yamên might with propriety reply that the foreign ministers, having been in China many years, must be even better acquainted with the etiquette prevailing here by which intercourse between China and equal nations has been regulated hitherto.

In view of the fact that Mr. Burlingame and Chih and Sun conformed to the customs of the countries they visited, it naturally follows that foreign ministers in China should conform to the ceremonial of the Chinese government. Audience of the sovereign, as it is justly stated in Mr. Wade’s memorandum, is an evidence of friendly relations. But assuming that friendly relations would be improved by granting the request of the foreign ministers for audience of the Emperor, and conceding that it would be offensive to the dignity of foreign governments were their ministers to make the kotow, (prostration,) it should, on the other hand, be stated that, as audience of the Emperor without kneeling would be offensive to the dignity of China, it follows that this ceremony cannot be dispensed with. When the minister styles that which is offensive to the dignity of the Chinese government an evidence of friendly relations, is not this a delusion? Even more unfair is it when speaking of a measure which it is well known is impracticable, because it is, in the opinion of every Chinese, derogatory to the dignity of his government to allude to this popular feeling as “the attitude of the yamên.”

In a word, in whatever concerns the dignity of the state, each side must take care that it does no injustice to the other. In this way only can a satisfactory settlement of the question under discussion be looked for. The yamên regards this as a matter of the highest importance, and would regret to see negotiations looking to its proper adjustment end in failure.

The foreign ministers well understand China. If they will look at both sides of the question, will put themselves in place of the Chinese, will consider the position of the prince and ministers of the yamên in this discussion, they will appreciate the anxiety which this matter has occasioned the yamên and deal with it reasonably.

The prince and ministers had no desire to enter upon this discussion; they have, however, felt it their duty to reply to the second memorandum presented by the minister.

The imperial decree of 12th October, 1867, (quoted memorandum of 21st,) has never been received by this yamên, and they will be obliged by information as to the quarter from which the foreign ministers obtained it.