C. 0. 40
4
protect its own missionaries in China, but it was not till ten years later—on the 22nd July, 1891—that the separation was completed. On that date the German Minister in Peking presented the Catholic German Bishop of Shantung to the Tsung-li Yamên.
Italian
8. Italy has more recently broken away. Her first attempt was in 1884, when the war was in progress between China and France and Signor de Luca was Italian Minister. After the troubled year of 1900 the attempt was renewed, and with success. Missionaries are no longer under French protection. When will Belgian, Dutch, Spanish, Austrian, and Portuguese missionaries be protected by their own Ministers?
9. It is essential that China should come into direct intercourse with the Pope. Negotiations towards this end were made in 1888, when an extraordinary mission was confided by Li Hung Chang to an Englishman named John George Dunn (30th day, 9th moon, 11th year Kuang Hsi (6th November, 1885)). He was to proceed to Rome, and there establish direct relations between China and the Pope. His mission was so far successful that the Pope decided to send a Legate to Peking, and nominated as his first representative Bishop Agliardi, the present Cardinal Bishop of Albano. But France intervened and crushed the project. If the Legate were sent, she threatened to rupture the Concordat by which the Catholic Church in France was maintained by the State, and the Pope, dreading the separation, cancelled the appointment. Now France has torn up the Concordat, has separated the Church from the State, has suppressed the French Embassy to the Vatican, and has expelled the refractory Congregations from France. Surely, if ever there was a time for China to take action, now is the time.
10. But to enter upon direct relations with Rome it is essential that the Decree of the 15th March, 1899, should be first annulled; for, if direct relations are established, there will, as an obvious corollary, be established in China a Catholic hierarchy, with not only, as at present, priests, pro-vicars, vicars, and Bishops, but with Archbishops and Cardinals; and if Bishops are still to rank as equals of Viceroys, what rank can you accord to Archbishops unless equality with Members of the Grand Council; while, as for Cardinals, "Princes of the Church as they are called, the only rank left for you to give them will be parity with your Imperial Princes,
serve.
Thus I have committed to paper some notes which I hope will attract your attention. In this matter I speak as a disinterested onlooker, with no personal interest to serve. There is much that I condemn in your Government, and many reforms that I regard as essential to the well-being of your nation. But no reform is more pressing than this Catholic question—no reform, for it is purely a question of internal administration, that can be more easily accomplished, than the abrogation of that unfortunate Decree of the 15th March, 1899. Now is the time and opportunity.
At a Conference, held in Shanghae on the 21st October, 1899, at which were present the Protestant Bishops of China, English and American, and the Bishops of Hong Kong and Corea, the question was discussed whether they should acquire for themselves and their missionaries the same privileges that had been conceded to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy by the Edict of the 15th March, 1899. The Bishops unanimously decided that it was inadvisable to take such a step. They had no wish to 'complicate their spiritual responsibilities by the assumption of political rights and duties, such as have been conceded" in the Edict referred to. The Resolution of the Conference was communicated on the 31st October, 1899, by the British Chargé d'Affaires to Lord Salisbury, and was by him submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. The Archbishop approved of the decision taken by the Bishops, considering that "both as a matter of principle and of policy it was undesirable that Protestant missionaries in China should claim the privileges" conceded by the Edict.
The British Government concurred in this view, and the British Chargé d'Affaires in Peking was instructed by despatch, dated the 27th February, 1900, to take no further action in the matter.
Peking, May 1, 1907.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[21203]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir C. MacDonald.
7 JUL 08
[June 16.]
SECTION 1.
(No. 154.) Sir,
Foreign Office, June 16, 1908.
I told the Japanese Ambassador to-day that the United States' Ambassador had spoken to me on the subject of the Russian contention at Harbin.
It was understood that the Russians claimed complete jurisdiction over 47 square miles at Harbin. This claim seemed to go beyond a fair interpretation of the Railway Agreement; it would create an imperium in imperio, and would be consistent neither with the integrity of China nor the "open door."
I understood that Mr. Root had expressed this view to the Japanese Ambassador at Washington, as he feared the Japanese might be going to support the Russian contention.
I had told the United States' Ambassador we agreed in the view that such an interpretation of the Railway Agreement would not be consistent with the integrity of China and the "open door," but that we were not prepared to take the initiative in opposing it unless British interests were concerned. We had no Consul at Harbin.
I gathered that the Japanese Government were not committed to the Russian view, and I thought they ought to know that the United States' Ambassador had spoken to me and the view I had expressed.
I had told the United States' Ambassador that we had, in our discussions with Japan, upheld the policy of the "open door" with regard to such points as had arisen in South Manchuria, such, for instance, as customs dues at Dalny and equal rates on the Manchurian Railway, and that the Japanese Government had met us on these points.
If necessary, I should at any time be very glad to discuss this question of the railway jurisdiction with the Japanese, and my only object in mentioning the matter now was that I thought the Japanese Government ought to know what had passed and the view we had taken of the question.
[1819 q-1]
I am, &c.
(Signed) E. GREY.
0
C. 0. 40
}
4
protect its own missionaries in China, but it was not till ten years later-on the 22nd July, 1891-that the separation was completed. On that date the German. Minister in Peking presented the Catholic German Bishop of Shantung to the Tsung-li Yamên.
Italian
8. Italy has more recently broken away. Her first attempt was in 1884, when the war was in progress between China and France and Signor de Luca was Italian Minister. After the troubled year of 1900 the attempt was renewed, and with success. missionaries are no longer under French protection. When will Belgian, Dutch, Spanish, Austrian, and Portuguese missionaries be protected by their own Ministers ?
9. It is essential that China should come into direct intercourse with the Pope. Negotiations towards this end were made in 1888, whon an extraordinary mission was confided by Li Hung Chang to an Englishman named John George Dunn (30th day, 9th moon, 11th year Kuang Hsi (6th November, 1885)). He was to proceed to Rome, and there establish direct relations between China and the Pope. His mission was so far successful that the Pope decided to send a Legate to Peking, and nominated as his first representative Bishop Agliardi, the present Cardinal Bishop of Albano. But France intervened and crushed the project. If the Legate were sent, she threatened to rupture the Concordat by which the Catholic Church in France was maintained by the State, and the Pope, dreading the separation, cancelled the appointment. Now France has torn up the Concordat, has separated the Church from the State, has suppressed the French Embassy to the Vatican, and has expelled the refractory Congregations from France. Surely, if ever there was a time for China to take action, now is the time.
10. But to enter upon direct relations with Rome it is essential that the Decree of the 15th March, 1899, should be first annulled; for, if direct relations are established, there will, as an obvious corollary, be established in China a Catholic hierarchy, with not only, as at present, priests, pro-vicars, vicars, and Bishops, but with Archbishops and Cardinals; and if Bishops are still to rank as equals of Viceroys, what rank can you accord to Archbishops unless equality with Members of the Grand Council; while, as for Cardinals, "Princes of the Church as they are called, the only rank left for you to give them will be parity with your Imperial Princes,
serve.
Thus I have committed to paper some notes which I hope will attract your atten- tion. In this matter I speak as a disinterested onlooker, with no personal interest to There is much that I condemn in your Government, and many reforms that I regard as essential to the well-being of your nation. But no reform is more pressing than this Catholie question-no reform, for it is purely a question of internal adminis- tration, that can be more easily accomplished, than the abrogation of that unfortunate Decree of the 15th March, 1899. Now is the time and opportunity.
At a Conference, held in Shanghae on the 21st October, 1899, at which were present the Protestant Bishops of China, English and American, and the Bishops of Ilong Kong and Corea, the question was discussed whether they should acquire for themselves and their missionaries the same privileges that had been conceded to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy by the Edict of the 15th March, 1899. The Bishops unanimously decided that it was inadvisable to take such a step. They had no wish to 'complicate their spiritual responsibilities by the assumption of political rights and duties, such as have been conceded" in the Edict referred to. The Resolution of the Conference was communicated on the 31st October, 1899, by the British Chargé d'Affaires to Lord Salisbury, and was by him submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. The Archbishop approved of the decision taken by the Bishops, considering that "both as a matter of principle and of policy it was undesirable that Protestant missionaries in China should claim the privileges" conceded by the Edict.
The British Government concurred in this view, and the British Chargé d'Affaires in Peking was instructed by despatch, dated the 27th February, 1900, to take no further action in the matter.
Peking, May 1, 1907.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Gove44.j
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[21203]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir C. MacDonald.
7 JUL 08
[June 16.]
SECTION 1.
(No. 154.) Sir,
Foreign Office, June 16, 1908. I TOLD the Japanese Ambassador to-day that the United States' Ambassador had spoken to me on the subject of the Russian contention at Harbin.
It was understood that the Russians claimed complete jurisdiction over 47 square miles at Harbin. This claim seemed to go beyond a fair interpretation of the Railway Agreement; it would create an imperium in imperio, and would be consistent neither with the integrity of China nor the " open door."
I understood that Mr. Root had expressed this view to the Japanese Ambassador at Washington, as he feared the Japanese might be going to support the Russian contention.
I had told the United States' Ambassador we agreed in the view that such an interpretation of the Railway Agreement would not be consistent with the integrity of China and the " open door," but that we were not prepared to take the initiative in opposing it unless British interests were concerned. We had no Consul at Harbin.
I gathered that the Japanese Government were not committed to the Russian view, and I thought they ought to know that the United States' Ambassador had spoken to me and the view I had expressed.
I had told the United States' Ambassador that we had, in our discussions with Japan, upheld the policy of the " open door" with regard to such points as had arisen in South Manchuria, such, for instance, as customs dues at Dalny and equal rates on the Manchurian Railway, and that the Japanese Government had met us on these points.
If necessary, I should at any time be very glad to discuss this question of the railway jurisdiction with the Japanese, and my only object in mentioning the matter now was that I thought the Japanese Government ought to know what had passed and the view we had taken of the question.
[1819 q-1]
I am, &c. (Signed) E. GREY.
0
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.