157
There are, in effect, two Treaties, the one relating exclusively to Chinese immigration, the matter which it had been supposed (as I believe, correctly) that the Commission was originally appointed to deal with; the other a Treaty containing certain provisions affecting trade and the administration of justice, which are ostensibly concessions to the Chinese: a set-off, as my telegram of to-day will apprise your Lordship, against the concession made by the Chinese Government in the Immigration Treaty.
Both instruments are laudably brief, neither exceeding four Articles in length. The immigration question had been regarded as finally settled by what is known as the Burlingame Treaty, signed at Washington on the 28th July, 1868. The emigration of Chinese had been declared lawful by Article V of Lord Elgin's Convention, signed at Peking on the 24th October, 1860, but the operation of the provision had been no little hindered by the Chinese authorities, partly because, in theory, the abandonment of his home by a Chinese is held to be immoral by the Government and people, and partly because the coolie traffic, to use the simplest term, had been attended with the gravest abuses. By Article V of the Burlingame Treaty the Governments of China and the United States declare the right of Chinese and Americans to change their home and allegiance, but protest against any but voluntary emigration. By Article VI the two Powers concede, each to the nationals of the other, the same privileges in respect of travel or residence in each other's territory as may be enjoyed by nationals of the most-favoured nation, but withhold the right of naturalization on either side.
As is well known, the influx of Chinese into California, from the stand-point of the white races interested in labour, has spoiled the labour-market, and legislation has appeared necessary, eminently in the State of California, to check the flow of immigration.
Mr. Swift, the senior of the Commissioners Extraordinary, spoke to me very calmly and sensibly on the subject. It was of no use, he said, calling it an Irish question. It happened, no doubt, that in California the Irish were those who were most seriously affected by the competition of the Chinese as servants or handicraftsmen; but the opposition would have been the same had the labour class been other than Irish. The State was obliged to do something, for a system of terrorism had been established. Servants not Chinese would not remain with families who employed Chinese, and those who did employ them might any morning find a notice on the house-door that in their house Chinese were employed. The Chinese themselves, as every one knew, were often brutally maltreated.
I have not yet seen the English text of the Treaty, but from the Chinese make out what has been achieved to be as follows:-
By Article I the two Powers agree that if the immigration of Chinese into the United States, or their residence therein, be at any time found disadvantageous to the United States, or a hindrance to the peace and order of any locality, the United States shall be free to limit the number of Chinese [entitled to emigrate] or the term of years [that they may reside], but not to prohibit immigration. This limitation is to affect a labour class only, and these are in no way to be maltreated or oppressed.
Article II excludes from the labour class missionaries, students, traders, and travellers, also (I think is meant) any Chinese accompanying or serving the above, as well as Chinese of the labour class already resident in America. These are all unrestricted in their movements, and entitled to the benefit of the most-favoured-nation clauses.
In Article III the American Government undertakes the protection from injury of all Chinese of whatsoever class now in the States.
If the regulations made as above in the United States appear to the Chinese Government to bear hard on the Chinese immigrant, the Chinese Government is enabled by Article IV to invite reconsideration of them both in Washington and in Peking.
Before the stipulations of this Treaty could be known with any exactness, indeed as soon as the appointment of the Special Commission was reported, the opinion of foreigners here, some Americans included, appeared highly unanimous upon one point. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the modification of the Burlingame Treaty in one point was generally deplored. The complaint of every Power has been for years that progress in China is retarded by the exclusivism of her Government and lettered men, and the modification of a Treaty in an exclusivist sense, it was thought, would supply the Chinese with a convenient answer to the common remonstrance against her tendency to close the country to the barbarian.
The Tsung-li Yamên appears to have seen two difficulties in the way of granting what was asked. In the first place, although, as I have said, emigration is theoretically condemned by the educated Chinese, the permission to emigrate had been sanctioned by
(654)
2 S
141
157
There are, in effect, two Treaties, the one relating exclusively to Chinese immi- gration, the matter which it had been supposed (as I believe, correctly) that the Commis- sion was originally appointed to deal with; the other a Treaty containing certain provisions affecting trade and the administration of justice, which are ostensibly conces- sions to the Chinese: a set-off, as my telegram of to-day will apprise your Lordship, against the concession made by the Chinese Government in the Immigration Treaty.
Both instruments are laudally brief, neither exceeding four Articles in length. The immigration question had been regarded as finally settled by what is known as the Burlingame Treaty, signed at Washington on the 28th July, 1868. The emigration of Chinese had been declared lawful by Article V of Lord Elgin's Convention, signed at Peking on the 24th October, 1860, but the operation of the provision had been no little hindered by the Chinese authorities, partly because, in theory, the abandonment of his home by a Chinese is held to be immoral by the Government and people, and partly because the coolie traffic, to use the simplest term, had been attended with the gravest abuses. By Article V of the Burlingame Treaty the Governments of China and the United States declare the right of Chinese and Americans to change their home and allegiance, but protest against any but voluntary emigration. By Article VI the two Powers concede, each to the nationals of the other, the same privileges in respect of travel or residence in each other's territory as may be enjoyed by nationals of the most- favoured nation, but withhold the right of naturalization on either side.
As is well known, the influx of Chinese into California, from the stand-point of the white races interested in labour, has spoiled the labour-market, and legislation has appeared necessary, eminently in the State of California, to check the flow of immigration,
Mr. Swift, the senior of the Commissioners Extraordinary, spoke to me very calmly and sensibly on the subject. It was of no use, he said, calling it an Irish question. It happened, no doubt, that in California the Irish were those who were most seriously affected by the competition of the Chinese as servants or handicraftsmen; but the opposition would have been the same had the labour class been other than Irish. The State was obliged to do something, for a system of terrorism had been established. Servants not Chinese would not remain with families who employed Chinese, and those who did employ them might any morning find a notice on the house-door that in their house Chinese were employed. The Chinese themselves, as every one knew, were often brutally maltreated.
I have not yet seen the English text of the Treaty, but from the Chine make out what has been achieved to be as follows:-
By Article I the two Powers agree that if the immigration of Chinese into the United States, or their residence therein, be at any time found disadvantageous to the United States, or a hindrance to the peace and order of any locality, the United States shall be free to limit the number of Chinese [entitled to emigrate] or the term of years [that they may reside], but not to prohibit immigration. This limitation is to affect a labour class only, and these are in no way to be maltreated or oppressed.
Article II excludes from the labour class missionaries, students, traders, and travellers, also (I think is meant) any Chinese accompanying or serving the above, as well as Chinese of the labour class already resident in America. These are all unre- stricted in their movements, and entitled to the benefit of the most-favoured-nation clauses.
In Article III the American Government undertakes the protection from injury of all Chinese of whatsoever class now in the States.
If the regulations made as above in the United States appear to the Chinese Government to bear hard on the Chinese immigrant, the Chinese Government is enabled by Article IV to invite reconsideration of them both in Washington and in Peking.
Before the stipulations of this Treaty could be known with any exactness, indeed as soon as the appointment of the Special Commission was reported, the opinion of foreigners here, some Americans included, appeared highly unanimous upon one point. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the modification of the Burlingame Treaty in one point was generally deplored. The complaint of every Power has been for years that progress in China is retarded by the exclusivism of her Government and lettered men, and the modification of a Treaty in an exclusivist sense, it was thought, would supply the Chinese with a convenient answer to the cominon remonstrance against her tendency to close the country to the barbarian.
The Tsung-li Yamên appears to have seen two difficulties in the way of granting what was asked. In the first place, although, as I have said, emigration is theoretically condemned by the educated Chinese, the permission to emigrate had been sanctioned by
(654)
2 S
141
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.