(Private and confidential.)
MY LORD,
20th January? to take into confidential receipt thereof. I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Obedient Humble Servant, Administering the Government.
19th October, 1887(?)
C. O.
44011
RECP
REGO 13 MAR 277
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
153
HONGKONG, January 20th, 1883.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's despatch of the 10th October, 1882, replying to the communication I made on behalf of this Chamber to your Lordship on the subject of the Treaty recently negotiated between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Korea.
I have now to convey to your Lordship the thanks of the Chamber for the courteous and confidential invitation extended to the Committee to express its views upon the Treaty, a copy of which was enclosed with Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's letter, and to set forth, with as much brevity as the subject permits, the opinions of the Committee upon the operation of the clauses which relate to Trade and Commerce.
The Committee has no doubt that Her Majesty's Government, when entering into political relations with Korea, has regarded that Kingdom as a State which is completely independent in respect of its domestic administration and its international responsibilities, though subject to a certain undefined suzerainty exercised by China, similar to that acknowledged by Annam and Burmah and hitherto satisfied by the rendition of an annual tribute. That such has also been the view held, until recently, by China herself, is clear from the evidence furnished by the express declarations of the Tsungli Yamên of Peking in 1866 and 1871 on the occasion of French and American difficulties with Korea, when the Chinese Government disclaimed all responsibility for Korean affairs, and by her acquiescence in the recognition of the complete independence of Korea which was declared in the Japanese Treaty with that country concluded in 1876.
Since, however, the attack upon the Japanese Legation at Seoul last year, the Chinese Government appears to have changed its attitude, and to have asserted its claims to exercise control not only over the administration of the internal affairs of Korea but also over its foreign relations. The Edict published some months ago in the Peking Gazette, notifying the punishment of the Dai-in-Kun, refers to the King of Korea as being subject to Chinese law and authority, and in a document recently made public, styled "Regulations for the conduct of trade by sea and land between Chinese and Korean subjects," the Grand Secretary LI-HUNG-CHANG, late Viceroy of Pechili, is designated in terms of official equality with the King of Korea, as if the Ruler of that Country were occupying a position delegated to him by the Emperor, analogous in point of rank and authority to that of a Governor General of a Chinese Province.
The Committee may hereafter deem it necessary to consider, in a separate communication to your Lordship, the terms of these "Regulations" and the special privileges which they appear to confer upon Chinese Traders, and refers to them now, when discussing the bearing of the British Treaty, in order to bring prominently before Her Majesty's Government the desirability of ascertaining the precise character of the relationship claimed by the Government of China quoad that of Korea, before Her Majesty is advised to ratify the Treaty negotiated by Admiral WILLES.
As the Kingdom of Korea has never been claimed to be an integral part of the Chinese Dominions, it is either a mediatized State under the protection of China, in which case the authority of its King to conclude Treaties with foreign nations may hereafter be questioned, or it is an independent country with whose autonomy the "Regulations" referred to are...
The Right Honourable
EARL GRANVILLE, K.G.,
&c., &c.
Her Majesty Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
LONDON.
letter addressed to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs containing the observations of the
Chamber
the commercial clauses
of the Treaty with Korea, which Lord
Granville promised
consideration on
(Private and confidential.)
MY LORD,
20th January!?
to take into in A Confidential
receipt thereof. I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's Most Obedient
Bumble Servant,
Administering the Government.
19th October, 12)
1807
to
C. O.
44011
RECP
REGO 13 MAR 277
HONGKONG GENERAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
153
HONGKONG, January 20th, 1883.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's despatch of
the 10th October, 1882, replying to the communication I made on behalf of this Chamber your Lordship on the subject of the Treaty recently negotiated between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Korea.
I have now to convey to your Lordship the thanks of the Chamber for the courteous and confidential invitation extended to the Committee to express its views upon the Treaty,
a copy of which was enclosed with Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's letter, and to set forth, with as much brevity as the subject permits, the opinions of the Committee upon the operation of the clauses which relate to Trade and Commerce.
The Committee has no doubt that Her Majesty's Government, when entering into political relations with Korea, has regarded that Kingdom as a State which is completely independent in respect of its domestic administration and its international responsibilities, though subject to a certain undefined suzerainty exercised by China, similar to that acknow- ledged by Annam and Burmah and hitherto satisfied by the rendition of an annual tribute. That such has also been the view held, until recently, by China herself, is clear from the evidence furnished by the express declarations of the Tsungli Yamên of Peking in 1866 and 1871 on the occasion of French and American difficulties with Korea, when the Chinese Government disclaimed all responsibility for Korean affairs, and by her acquiescence in the recognition of the complete independence of Korea which was declared in the Japanese Treaty with that country concluded in 1876.
Since, however, the attack upon the Japanese Legation at Seoul last year, the Chinese Government appears to have changed its attitude, and to have asserted its claims to exercise control not only over the administration of the internal affairs of Korea but also over its foreign relations. The Edict published some months ago in the Peking Gazette, notifying the punishment of the Dai-in-Kun, refers to the King of Korea as being subject to Chinese law and authority, and in a document recently made public, styled "Regulations for the conduct of trade by sea and land between Chinese and Korean subjects," the Grand Secretary LI-HUNG-CHANG, late Viceroy of Pechili, is designated in terms of official equality with the King of Korea, as if the Ruler of that Country were occupying a position delegated to him by the Emperor, analogous in point of rank and authority to that of a Governor General of a Chinese Province.
The Committee may hereafter deem it necessary to consider, in a separate communica- tion to your Lordship, the terms of these "Regulations" and the special privileges which they appear to confer upon Chinese Traders, and refers to them now, when discussing the bearing of the British Treaty, in order to bring prominently before Her Majesty's Govern- ment the desirability of ascertaining the precise character of the relationship claimed by the Government of China quoad that of Korea, before Her Majesty is advised to ratify the Treaty negotiated by Admiral WILLES.
As the Kingdom of Korea has never been claimed to be an integral part of the Chinese Dominions, it is either a mediatized State under the protection of China, in which case the authority of its King to conclude Treaties with foreign nations may hereafter be questioned, or it is an independent country with whose autonomy the "Regulations" referred to are
The Right Honourable
EARL GRANVILLE, K.G.,
Se..
&c.,
$c.
Her Majesty Principal Secretary of State for Foreign affairs,
LONDON.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.