I MUST observe with regard to the phrase in your letter of the 9th April,* 1849, "the question at issue rests where it was, and must remain in abeyance," that though the meaning of that phrase is sufficiently intelligible to an English reader, it might, without much straining, be made, by translation into a foreign language, to bear the meaning which the Chinese have attached to it; namely, that Her Majesty's Government had entirely abandoned all discussions connected with their right of entry into the city of Canton. And this misconstruction of the meaning of your note sufficiently shows that in addressing communications to foreign Governments, and especially to one like that of China, great care should be taken to express an intended meaning in terms so plain and simple as to prevent any misconstruction from being founded upon the expressions used.

No. 2.

Mr. Bonham to Viscount Palmerston.-(Received

.)

My Lord, I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch of the 8th October last, and I beg to assure your Lordship that I shall be henceforward most careful, in addressing the Chinese authorities, to express my meaning in terms so plain and simple as to prevent any misconstruction from being founded upon the expressions used.

Victoria, Hong Kong, December 21, 1850.

With reference to the particular passage in my communication addressed to the Imperial Commissioner on the 9th of April, 1849, which your Lordship conceives may have impressed him with the idea that the Canton question would be discussed no more, I have called separately upon Mr. Interpreter Meadows and Mr. Wade, Assistant Chinese Secretary, for an explicit opinion upon the possibility of any such misunderstanding, and I beg to inclose the remarks of these two gentlemen upon the Chinese version of the passage in question, from which your Lordship will perceive that the Chinese text appears to them to convey sufficiently the meaning of the English draft of my note, and to be incapable of any other construction; and further, that there is good ground for supposing that it was understood as it should be by the Chinese Government, inasmuch as there are found to be serious omissions and alterations of the text of my note in the words quoted from it, both by the Imperial Commissioner and the Ministers Muhchangah and Keying.

I beg your Lordship to believe that I am moved to forward these remarks by no spirit of discussion, but from a desire to inform your Lordship of what I find to be really the case, and to do justice to Mr. Gutzlaff, who, as translator of my note, is of course responsible for the accuracy of the Chinese.

I have, &c.

Papers relating to the Proceedings of Her Majesty's Naval Forces at Canton, 1857, p. 184.

[147]

B

Inc'osure 1 in No. 2.

Memorandum.

WITH reference to the passage in the letter from Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary to the Imperial Commissioner of the 9th April, 1849, "the question at issue rests where it was and must remain in abeyance," and in reply to the query whether the Chinese translation of that or of the next following sentence could be understood by a Chinese to mean that the question of entrance into the city should not again be mooted; I have to state it as my full conviction that no Chinese would so understand either of these passages.

I should conceive the following to be a fair retranslation of the first into English: "The Article under consideration is now, as before, unsettled, and must be reserved." As to the second, the Imperial Commissioner when referring to it in his letter of the 27th August, 1849, instead of giving it literally as a quotation, according to the Chinese custom, has embodied it garbled, by which device only he is enabled to pervert the meaning.

(Signed)

December 20, 1850.

THOMAS TAYLOR MEADOWS, Interpreter.

Sir,

Inclosure 2 in No. 2.

Mr. Wade to Mr. Bonham.

Chinese Secretary's Office, December 20, 1850.

IN accordance with your Excellency's instructions, I have carefully examined the Chinese version of your Excellency's communication addressed to the Imperial Commissioner Seu on the 9th April, 1849.

I am decidedly of opinion that the Chinese of that despatch, of which Mr. Gutzlaff was the translator, could not have conveyed to the Commissioner's mind the impression that the discussion of the question at issue was finally dropped.

There is strong evidence of wilful misinterpretation on the part of the Commissioner, in the fact, that in his rejoinder to the remonstrance made to him on the 21st August, 1849, under instruction of Her Majesty's Government, he does not, as is usual, quote the exact words of your Excellency's note of the 9th April, but introduces an important alteration which alone enables him to put his own construction on a particular passage.

The Chinese of that passage and the clause preceding it, as written in the note sent to him, signifies: "It is necessary to wait awhile; at the present time the discussion of this question cannot be renewed between your Excellency (Seu) and myself;" or the latter clause may mean, "Still less, at the present time, can it be discussed, &c." In referring to this passage the Commissioner omits altogether the first clause, " It is necessary to wait, &c.," and by substituting "henceforth" for "at the present time," forces a construction which suits his purpose.

The sentence, as he misquotes it, would certainly mean "Henceforth the discussion cannot be renewed," he does not even say "between us;" and the false impression that the discussion is dropped for ever is strengthened in the note of the Ministers Muhchangah and Keying to the Governor-General of the Two Kwang residing at Nankin, copy of which was brought back by Her Majesty's ship "Reynard." In this latter a preceding sentence of your Excellency's note "the question is undecided as it was before," is converted into "the question having been decided upon deliberation, there can henceforth be no more discussion;" the intermediate clause importing the necessity of a delay is omitted, in the Commissioner's rejoinder of the 27th August, 1849.

I have, &c.

as

(Extract.)

No. 3.

Earl Granville to Dr. Bowring.

Foreign Office, January 19, 1852. THE Queen having been pleased to permit Sir Samuel Bonham to absent himself for a time from China, it has become necessary to make provision for the execution during his absence of his duties in connection with this office.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to grant to you a commission appointing you a Superintendent of the Trade of British subjects in China, under the Act of 3rd and 4th William IV, cap. 93; and in order to avoid any cavil on the part of the Chinese authorities, Her Majesty has been further pleased to grant you a full power as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary.

I have to state to you that it is the anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to avoid all irritating discussions with that of China. It will, of course, be your duty carefully to watch over, and to insist upon, the performance by the Chinese authorities of the engagements which exist between the two countries. But you will not push argument on doubtful points in a manner to fetter the free action of your Government; and you will not resort to measures of force without previous reference home, except in the extreme case of such measures being required to repel aggression, or to protect the lives and properties of British subjects.

On receiving from Sir Samuel Bonham an intimation of the day of his departure, you will proceed to Hong Kong, and take up your residence in that island for the period of Sir Samuel Bonham's absence.

No. 4.

Dr. Bowring to the Earl of Clarendon.-(Received June 14.)

(Extract.) Victoria, Hong Kong, April 19, 1852. I HAVE to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch dated Foreign Office, the 19th January, stating that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to nominate me a Superintendent of the Trade of British subjects in China, and to grant me a full power as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary.

I have read with the utmost anxiety and attention that paragraph of your Lordship's despatch which lays down the course of policy which I am to pursue in China in the exercise of my important functions. While I am called upon "to watch over and to insist upon the performance by the Chinese authorities of the engagements which exist between the two countries," I am at the same time to "avoid all irritating discussions;" to push no " argument on doubtful points so as to fetter the free action of Her Majesty's Government;" to resort to no measures of force without reference home, except in the extreme case of such measures being necessary to repel aggression or to protect the lives and properties of British subjects. Your Lordship may depend upon my obedience to these instructions.

I trust, however, it may not be deemed intrusive or unbecoming if I make a few observations on the policy of the Chinese Government; and respectfully suggest a course of action by which, according to my humble judgment, the honour and influence of my country may be best maintained, the security and extension of commerce best provided for, and the permanent interests of peace best promoted.

The Pottinger Treaties inflicted a deep wound upon the pride, but by no means altered the policy, of the Chinese Government. They were submitted to as a hard necessity. The motive which influenced our negotiations was the removal of the barriers which prohibited intercourse with the vast Empire of China, and the establishment and gradual expansion of friendly commercial relations with its multitudinous inhabitants. We sought to enable our merchants to avail themselves of the immense resources, and the extraordinary producing and consuming powers of China, and to offer in return to the people of China

all the advantages of an honourable and lucrative commerce. But this object never met with the concurrence or found the co-operation of the Chinese authorities. Their purpose is now, as it ever was, not to invite, not to facilitate, but to impede and resist, the access of foreigners.

This policy is impressed upon all the high officers of the Empire, associated, however, with the most stringent commands to avoid collisions with foreign nations, and to take care that the public peace shall not be disturbed. These two conditions constitute the basis of the Imperial instructions to all the functionaries of the State, as regards their relations with strangers.

The popularity at Court, and in the country, of Seu, the present Imperial Commissioner, is mainly attributable to the reputation he enjoys of having, more than any other man, successfully repelled the advances and counteracted the policy of foreigners without any interruption of the public tranquillity. To the consummate skill of his negotiations, and not to the forbearance of Her Majesty's Government, every retrograde step is attributed. He has thus temporarily succeeded in establishing an additional duty on tea at Canton, in defiance of the Treaty tariff. He has, to some extent, reorganized the warehouse monopoly, when complete abolition was provided for by the Treaties.

It must, then, ever be borne in mind, in considering the state of our relations with these regions, that the Governments of Great Britain and China have objects at heart which are diametrically opposed, except in so far that both Governments earnestly desire to avoid all hostile action, and to make its own policy, as far as possible, subordinate to that desire.

It is true, the impressions made in the campaign preceding the Treaties by the victorious arms of Great Britain have somewhat passed away, and it was not fairly to be expected that any successor to Sir Henry Pottinger should wield the same amount of influence, when the instruments and representative of that influence were removed from the field. But enough is known and felt of the power of Great Britain to warrant the belief that she may, without any risk of war, insist on the strict observance of every Treaty-obligation, and that such is the safest, wisest, and, in the long run, the most pacific policy. Our hesitation, our delay, our caution, are misinterpreted and misunderstood, and often render the settlement of questions and the redress of grievances difficult, which a prompt and energetic policy would have immediately secured.

The degradation and dismissal of every Mandarin of rank who was in any way connected with the Pottinger Treaties is irresistible evidence of the retroactive policy of the Court of Peking. To the "obnoxious and perfidious counsel" given by Keying "on barbarian affairs "his downfall is attributed in the Imperial Decree which announces his disgrace.

Muhchanghah, the then Prime Minister, Hwang, Keying's able adviser, and a number of other high functionaries, have been dismissed because deemed favourable to foreigners; while many Mandarins, distinguished only for the violence of their "anti-barbarian" policy, have been advanced to high posts of trust and honour.

I cannot but deem it an unfortunate circumstance that Canton should have been fixed upon as the spot to which, practically, are confined all negotiations with the higher authorities of China. May not the time speedily arrive for considering whether the enormous interests at stake in China would not be greatly served by the establishment of a regular Embassy at Peking? At the present moment China contributes nearly 9,000,000l. sterling of revenue to the British and Indian treasuries, and our commercial relations here are undoubtedly capable of an immense extension. They cannot be adequately protected, still less, largely increased, under the existing system of exclusion. It may be doubted if, at the present moment, Her Majesty's Government has any means of access to the Emperor's Ministers at Peking; if any despatch whose contents are unpalatable to the Imperial Commissioner, ever finds its way to the Imperial presence.

Placed as we now are, the importance of access to the city, and to the high authorities of Canton, has not, I think, been sufficiently appreciated. Even as an isolated matter, I venture to repeat my conviction that it is most desirable the Chinese should know that, whatever engagements their Sovereign has contracted with the Queen of England must be righteously and strictly fulfilled. In Canton there are eight Mandarins, at least, who have the privilege of direct correspondence with the Emperor, and it is frequently visited by Imperial Com