Prince Kung to George F. Seward, January 19, 1880

Prince Kung to the foreign representatives.

Prince Kung, chief secretary of state for foreign affairs, here with makes a communication in reply:

Upon the 22d of November last I had the honor to receive a collective note from your excellencies the several foreign representatives in Peking, upon the question of inland taxation upon foreign goods taken to the interior as well as upon native produce intended for export, and stating that as China had repeatedly declared her willingness to enter upon a joint consideration of the question, your excellencies had drawn up a list of grievances to which you invited my careful consideration.

Upon this subject I beg leave to remark that it was not China that sent her agents to the several governments to negotiate the existing treaties. Assuredly it was these several governments who sent their agents to China requesting the negotiation of the treaties. The various articles contained in them were all made on the motion of the several governments, and their stipulations were all determined at the request of the several powers. Aside from the provision that China may establish rules to protect her revenue, this government has no foothold left for itself.

China refused none of the requests of the several foreign powers, and has not failed to take measures to carry into effect these requests.

All these treaties may be said to have been new creations of the past twenty years, and it could hardly be avoided that some of their stipulations should be either unprofitable or detrimental to China, but since the mutual observance of them in this long period has given reciprocal satisfaction to all parties, a thing difficult to be secured, it cannot be said that their observance has been without advantage.

In reference to the more than twenty grievances inclosed with your excellency’s note, they have received careful attention. It would appear as though throughout these twenty years China has been in daily violation of her treaty obligations. If China should write in detail all her grievances against the officials and merchants of the several governments, it is to be feared that they would not be limited to twenty.

If any two powers, desiring commercial intercourse, should appoint their agents to fix rules of intercourse, these rules naturally being difficult to arrange, it would ordinarily be difficult to provide against future differences of opinion between them.

In regard to the relations of the past twenty years between China and foreign powers, it has happened that a certain government has sent a high official to China to discuss certain business. After a negotiation, extending over a long period, a conclusion was reached. Thereafter the stipulations proposed, and to which China had assented, were transmitted to his government, and, to the surprise of the high functionary, his government refused its consent. It has also happened that a diplomatic agent of a certain government has discussed with the high authorities of China the intent of certain treaty stipulations without coming to agreement. Thereafter his government was of opinion that the representative in question had, in the discussion, made willful misrepresentations.

Again, a certain consular officer, regardful of the treaties, held that a particular line of action was in accordance with their stipulations and the trade rules. But his superior, at Peking, on the contrary, criticised his action as a violation of the treaties. Again, when the merchants and people of some nation have violated the rules, and China has held that they should be punished, the government of the persons concerned has at times been of the same opinion with China, and at times of a different opinion.

Thus the divergences in the given cases arose, not because the officials and merchants concerned had no thought for the good relations of the governments but because of errors in their action. And hence, of course, in a long period, greater divergences in these directions would result.

The foreign powers were the parties seeking the treaty stipulations, and China was the party assenting to them. Since the parties who sought them have not been without misrepresentation, how could it he assured that there should be no misunderstanding on the side of the assenting party? But if these differences of opinion are to be construed as violations of the treaties, and as a basis for a breach of good relations, then it would seem as if there had not been a day in all these twenty years when such a breach has not occurred. But China is unwilling to consider the mistake of an individual as the failure of his government, but holds, rather, that when a matter arises it should be dealt with by itself, and when a case occurs, that case should be decided.

In regard to the mistakes of Chinese officials in the interpretation of the treaties, or in matters of trade, these certainly cannot be avoided, but will likely be of constant occurrence.

In regard to the twenty grievances mentioned in your excellency’s dispatch, it is probable that at certain places and at certain times there may have been instances of the sort, but not at all places and constantly. How can instances of these sorts be held to prove that China, in all parts and always, acts in this way, and violates her treaty obligations in such manner?

If at any time a question arises, upon representations being made, it can be thereupon adjusted and closed. If at any locality a point of dissatisfaction arises, upon representations being made at the given point, it can there be arranged. If any official commits an error, foreign officials can set forth the error, and China will rectify it, and deal with the offender.

Speaking generally, whatever may be the friendship, it is impossible in a long period to avoid the appearance of suspicions, or the existence of mutual resentments. No matter how perfect the stipulations of the treaties, errors of interpretation cannot be avoided, nor that there will be violators of the regulations. In all matters of intercourse each matter must be dealt with as it occurs, and each party should seek the way to strengthen good relations.

More than half of the twenty grievances mentioned in your excellency’s note refer to the collection of the duties and transit dues. This Yamên has three plans in mind upon this subject:

• The present regulations may be carried into effect. The high provincial authorities will, on the one hand, be instructed by this Yamên to direct their officials to act in good faith in obedience to them, and, on the other hand, your several consular officers and merchants will be instructed by your excellency to scrupulously obey them. Or,
• The regulations heretofore agreed upon between this Yamên and his excellency, the British minister, Sir Rutherford Alcock, may be put in force. Or,
• The stipulation in the several treaties that foreigners shall not be subject to Chinese jurisdiction may be stricken out, and foreigners in China shall be subject to Chinese authority at all places and always, and be dealt with as Chinese subjects.

Their excellencies, the foreign representatives, may indicate which plan they prefer. Or, if the three are all inadmissible, then there will be no difficulty in the way of the consideration of the procedure which, in the minds of their excellencies, seems to be desirable, provided it is practicable for China.

In addition to making answer to each grievance in detail, I have the honor thus to respond to your excellency.