CO129-219 Foreign Office 1884 — Page 345

Colonial Office

No. 1.

C. O.

20848

IREC.

GEGO 8 DEC

344

(No. 201.) My Lord,

Sir H. Parkes to Earl Granville.--(Received November 18.)

Peking, October 1, 1884. IN the afternoon of the 18th ultimo I received a telegram from Her Majesty's Acting Consul at Canton, stating :-

Proclamation issned by high authorities inciting Chinese in Tonquin, Saigon, Singa- pore, and Penang to damage French ships and poison Frenchmen."

I, therefore, wrote a note to the Tsung-li Yamên, denouncing this act as a gross offence both against international law and humanity, and asking for an interview with the Prince and Ministers at the earliest hour they could name.

His Highness and their Excellencies received me on the 19th, when I forcibly impressed upon them the gravity of the matter, the injury it would occasion to the reputa- tion of the Chinese Government, and the serious consequences that might ensue unless the evil effects of such a publication were promptly remedied.

The Prince and Ministers disavowed all knowledge of the Proclamation, and declared that if it had been issued it would certainly be disapproved. They said they would imme- diately telegraph to Canton for information, and would communicate with me again on receiving a Report.

A week passed without my hearing from them. In this interval Her Majesty's Acting Consul at Canton had assured me that he was certain of the authenticity of the Proclamation, and on the morning of the 26th I received the following telegram from the Governor of Singapore :---

"Proclamation, issued by high authoritics, Canton, 15th September, published here, calling on Chinese in Singapore and Penang to destroy French vessels and poison French subjects. Suggest you should request its immediate cancellation."

I at once demanded another interview, and saw the Prince and Ministers the same day.

Having expressed disappointment at having received no communication from them on the subject, they assured me that the Report they had called for had not yet reached them. I then told them that the telegrams I had received from the Consul and Governor clearly proved the publication of the Proclamation, and also that it was the act of a high provin- cial Government, and not of a subordinate local official, whose wrong-doing could be easily disavowed. The mode of correction, therefore, I said, must be us exemplary as the offence. I had well considered the matter since our last interview, and had formed the conclusion that nothing less than an Imperial Decree annulling the Proclamation and cen- suring the high authorities for issuing it would adequately serve to remedy the ill-effects of such an ill-advised measure.

The Prince and Ministers evinced a degree of concern which I think they would soarcely have shown if they had not been satisfied from their own information that the charge I made was well founded. They appeared to acquiesce in my view, that the wrong done should be corrected by an Imperial Decree, but they maintained that they could not address the Throne on the subject until they were in possession of the terms of the Proclamation.

I agreed to wait for two or three days longer, but addressed them on the following morning the inclosed note, in which I renewed the language I had used at the two inter- views, and which, as it is given in this note, I feel need not be repeated at length in this despatch.

At the close of the interview of the 26th, I also telegraphed to your Lordship begging that I might be authorized to insist upon the publication of an Imperial Decree, and that your Lordship would be so good as to support my action by remonstrance with the Chinese Minister in London. I gratefully thank your Lordship for your reply, which I received on the afternoon of the 28th, approving of my language to the Yamên, and according me the aid I had requested.

B-6

[2206]