조선 문제 관련 恭親王 등과의 면담 내용 확인 요청
Legation of the United States
Peking, November 22, 1871
Peking, November 22, 1871
Sir:
At the interview which I had the honor to have with Your Imperial Highness and the Ministers Wan-tsiang and Tung-Siun a few days since, the letter received recently by the Board of Rites from the King of Corea and matters relating thereto were among other things discussed. That subject being, at the present time, so important. I beg to submit in writing the substance of the remarks made on either side, and I would thank you to inform me whether my recollection of what occurred is correct; and if I have mis-stated anything. I would fell obliged if you would point out the errors into which I have fallen.
I remarked that one of the objects of my visit was to thank you for a copy of the King’s letter, and to say that while it contained many erroneous statements, and some of the language was inappropriate and unbecoming such a document. I did not attach responsibility to the Government of China for either. In regard to the facts of what took place during my late visit to that country, the latter which I caused to be written just prior to my departure from there, copy of which the King mentions as having been sent to the Board of Rites, contains a succinct history of all that occurred.
It is unnecessary to refer to the King’s complaint of lack of courtesy to the officials sent to meet me farther than to say that they, claiming to be of the third rank only, and not bringing any credentials, were received and treated courteously by the American Acting Secretary of Legation, an official of the second rank, who informed them that the objects I had in view were substantially stated in my letter to the King written before I started in any letter to the King written before I started, and which they acknowledged had been duly received.
With reference to the report said to have been made by the Colonel of Kang-hoa, “that Major Li Lien came upon them (our forces) by surprise in the night whereupon they retired [&c.]” I said that it was entirely without foundation. The Naval forces accomplished all they were sent to do (destroy the fortifications that had assaulted our vessels) and when their work was finished they returned in obedience to the Admirals’ orders issued before they started.
If Major Li Lien commanded a force in that vicinity he took good care to keep out of the range of our guns.
I further remarked that the whole tenor of the letter under discussion, as well as the previous one, led me to think that the King of Corea must be ignorant of the relations existing between China and the United States, otherwise he would not have presumed to solicit the Emperor to issue an edict which instead of doing any good would be considered an insult by my Government and liable to be resented as such.
In reply you remarked that the request was a piece of folly and that the King had already been informed that it would not be complied with.
Your Imperial Highness and the Minister then produced to say that Corea is entirely independent, so far as her Government. Religion, and intercourse with foreign states are concerned; that the relations between that country and yours, established during the reign of the Ming Emperors, nominally continued unchanged, although practically they have little force.
In response I observed that I did not propose to controvert or question these statements as being your construction of the relations at present existing between China and that country, but I felt entirely certain that Corea regarded them in an entirely different light. In support of this opinion I referred to both of the King’s, and particularly to a paragraph in the last one near the end of it. That there may be no mistake about the language to which reference is made, I beg to leave to quote the paragraph entire. He says: “Our state having four generations been the guard on your eastern border has enjoyed the greatest kindness: his Majesty even looking on it as within his borders. Whatever troubles it has had, had never failed to call forth his far-reaching solicitude in devising relief: and if he feared that it would receive injury the curtain of his protection, illimitable as the heavens and earth, has been stretched over us. We are now involved in trouble like those who have got into a pit or among thorns and I cannot but raise a cry of anguish from a far, even at the risk of troubling you greatly, for deep indeed is my alarm.”
It seems to me quite clear that the King seeks your help to keep foreign nations from going there for any purpose, and if they do go he expects material aid from China to expel them by force. In justification of his refusal to treat with me he quotes in his previous letter an ancient Chinese maxim: “A Minister of the Emperor must not have relations with a foreign state,” apparently ignorant of the fact that this rule has been superceded in China, by one more in accordance with the spirit of the age. He seems also to be unaware of the fact that foreign states “have relations” with the “Minister of the Emperor” on terms of entire equality.
The King’s acts and assumptions cannot be satisfactorily accounted for upon any other hypothesis than that he is ignorant of the relations that exist between China and Western nations. It is evident that he thinks the United States is a tributary state the same as Corea, otherwise he would not expect the American Minister, who meets on terms of equality the Prince Imperial China and transacts public business with him direct, to meet officials of the third rank of a state that is vassal of China. Had that government been aware of the actual position in which other countries stand toward China, the suzerain of his Kingdom, it is scarcely probable that the difficulties of the past would have been provoked: and were the actual facts made known now troubles in the future might be arrived. It is not my province to say what course Your Imperial Highness shall pursue in regard to it, but I beg leave must respectfully to suggest that, standing as China does to Corea, ― in the relation of Guardian and Ward, if she fails to perform so obvious a duty, a grave responsibility will be incurred, and this neglect may be regarded by the Government of the United States, and possibly by those of Europe also, as an act of unfriendliness.
In reply to this suggestion you reiterated your previous statement in regard to the practical independence of that country, and said that the King had already been informed that no edict would be issued. You farther observed that it would be useless to give farther observed that it would be useless to give farther information or offer advice as the first would do no good and the latter would not be heeded.
I remarked, in conclusion, that while the letters from the King throw some additional light upon the attitude of that Government, they contain no arguments which lead me to doubt that the attempt made last summer by the Government of the United States to make some definite arrangements for the rescue of its citizens who may be wrecked upon that coast and the recovery of their property, was not justified by the “Law of Nations,” the right of self preservation and the principles of humanity: nor does the special pleading of the King alter in any degree the opinion I had formed that the attack upon our vessels was unprovoked, premeditated and wanton, fully justifying the severe punishment inflicted by our forces. What the decision of my Government in regard to the future is or will be, I am not at this time authorized to make known: but it is unreasonable to suppose that it will be satisfied with the simple avowal of the King, made through your Government, that the lives of shipwrecked mariners shall not be sacrificed, while the wrecked steamships and vessels with their cargoes are certain to be looted and burned as was the case with one or more European vessels last summer.
I do not feel called upon to reply to the letter under discussion, until I shall have submitted a copy of it to my Government and taken further instructions. I have, however, the original letter I wrote to the King last summer, but which in consequence of the local authorities to forward it failed to reach him, which I would still be glad to send. It contains an entirely frank statement of the situation as it was then and is now: and its perusal might lead His Majesty to review in the light of reason and justice his former acts, and reconsider his present decision. Your good offices in forwarding this letter might prove of material advantage to the Government of Corea.
In response, I understood you to say that the sending of my letter last spring was an unusual act of courtesy: that acting in the capacity of intermediary for such purposes as I desired would be likely to involve your Government in responsibilities, which had been announced to me from the first you were anxious to avoid: that in your opinion farther correspondence would be productive of no good: and that you must respectfully but positively decline to be the medium for correspondence in the future.
The interview then closed. In connection with and supplementary to what was said at our interview, I beg to leave most respectfully, to enclose for your information a copy of the letter referred to in our conversation. I do this in order that Your Imperial Highness may be able to fully understand the reasonable nature of the demands I was instructed by my Government to make, the spirit of moderation and conciliation, both before and after hostilities occurred, in which they are made, and, when forced by self-respect and honor to resent unprovoked insults and injuries, the narrow limit within which the Admiral confirmed hostile operations. I cannot but think that, after you shall by the perusal of this letter, be made acquainted with the whole question at issue, you will, as an act of justice and friendliness to the Rule of a State, vassal to China, who looked to you for counsel as well as assistance in trouble, conclude to send the original on to the King.
With renewed assurances of my high consideration.
At the interview which I had the honor to have with Your Imperial Highness and the Ministers Wan-tsiang and Tung-Siun a few days since, the letter received recently by the Board of Rites from the King of Corea and matters relating thereto were among other things discussed. That subject being, at the present time, so important. I beg to submit in writing the substance of the remarks made on either side, and I would thank you to inform me whether my recollection of what occurred is correct; and if I have mis-stated anything. I would fell obliged if you would point out the errors into which I have fallen.
I remarked that one of the objects of my visit was to thank you for a copy of the King’s letter, and to say that while it contained many erroneous statements, and some of the language was inappropriate and unbecoming such a document. I did not attach responsibility to the Government of China for either. In regard to the facts of what took place during my late visit to that country, the latter which I caused to be written just prior to my departure from there, copy of which the King mentions as having been sent to the Board of Rites, contains a succinct history of all that occurred.
It is unnecessary to refer to the King’s complaint of lack of courtesy to the officials sent to meet me farther than to say that they, claiming to be of the third rank only, and not bringing any credentials, were received and treated courteously by the American Acting Secretary of Legation, an official of the second rank, who informed them that the objects I had in view were substantially stated in my letter to the King written before I started in any letter to the King written before I started, and which they acknowledged had been duly received.
With reference to the report said to have been made by the Colonel of Kang-hoa, “that Major Li Lien came upon them (our forces) by surprise in the night whereupon they retired [&c.]” I said that it was entirely without foundation. The Naval forces accomplished all they were sent to do (destroy the fortifications that had assaulted our vessels) and when their work was finished they returned in obedience to the Admirals’ orders issued before they started.
If Major Li Lien commanded a force in that vicinity he took good care to keep out of the range of our guns.
I further remarked that the whole tenor of the letter under discussion, as well as the previous one, led me to think that the King of Corea must be ignorant of the relations existing between China and the United States, otherwise he would not have presumed to solicit the Emperor to issue an edict which instead of doing any good would be considered an insult by my Government and liable to be resented as such.
In reply you remarked that the request was a piece of folly and that the King had already been informed that it would not be complied with.
Your Imperial Highness and the Minister then produced to say that Corea is entirely independent, so far as her Government. Religion, and intercourse with foreign states are concerned; that the relations between that country and yours, established during the reign of the Ming Emperors, nominally continued unchanged, although practically they have little force.
In response I observed that I did not propose to controvert or question these statements as being your construction of the relations at present existing between China and that country, but I felt entirely certain that Corea regarded them in an entirely different light. In support of this opinion I referred to both of the King’s, and particularly to a paragraph in the last one near the end of it. That there may be no mistake about the language to which reference is made, I beg to leave to quote the paragraph entire. He says: “Our state having four generations been the guard on your eastern border has enjoyed the greatest kindness: his Majesty even looking on it as within his borders. Whatever troubles it has had, had never failed to call forth his far-reaching solicitude in devising relief: and if he feared that it would receive injury the curtain of his protection, illimitable as the heavens and earth, has been stretched over us. We are now involved in trouble like those who have got into a pit or among thorns and I cannot but raise a cry of anguish from a far, even at the risk of troubling you greatly, for deep indeed is my alarm.”
It seems to me quite clear that the King seeks your help to keep foreign nations from going there for any purpose, and if they do go he expects material aid from China to expel them by force. In justification of his refusal to treat with me he quotes in his previous letter an ancient Chinese maxim: “A Minister of the Emperor must not have relations with a foreign state,” apparently ignorant of the fact that this rule has been superceded in China, by one more in accordance with the spirit of the age. He seems also to be unaware of the fact that foreign states “have relations” with the “Minister of the Emperor” on terms of entire equality.
The King’s acts and assumptions cannot be satisfactorily accounted for upon any other hypothesis than that he is ignorant of the relations that exist between China and Western nations. It is evident that he thinks the United States is a tributary state the same as Corea, otherwise he would not expect the American Minister, who meets on terms of equality the Prince Imperial China and transacts public business with him direct, to meet officials of the third rank of a state that is vassal of China. Had that government been aware of the actual position in which other countries stand toward China, the suzerain of his Kingdom, it is scarcely probable that the difficulties of the past would have been provoked: and were the actual facts made known now troubles in the future might be arrived. It is not my province to say what course Your Imperial Highness shall pursue in regard to it, but I beg leave must respectfully to suggest that, standing as China does to Corea, ― in the relation of Guardian and Ward, if she fails to perform so obvious a duty, a grave responsibility will be incurred, and this neglect may be regarded by the Government of the United States, and possibly by those of Europe also, as an act of unfriendliness.
In reply to this suggestion you reiterated your previous statement in regard to the practical independence of that country, and said that the King had already been informed that no edict would be issued. You farther observed that it would be useless to give farther observed that it would be useless to give farther information or offer advice as the first would do no good and the latter would not be heeded.
I remarked, in conclusion, that while the letters from the King throw some additional light upon the attitude of that Government, they contain no arguments which lead me to doubt that the attempt made last summer by the Government of the United States to make some definite arrangements for the rescue of its citizens who may be wrecked upon that coast and the recovery of their property, was not justified by the “Law of Nations,” the right of self preservation and the principles of humanity: nor does the special pleading of the King alter in any degree the opinion I had formed that the attack upon our vessels was unprovoked, premeditated and wanton, fully justifying the severe punishment inflicted by our forces. What the decision of my Government in regard to the future is or will be, I am not at this time authorized to make known: but it is unreasonable to suppose that it will be satisfied with the simple avowal of the King, made through your Government, that the lives of shipwrecked mariners shall not be sacrificed, while the wrecked steamships and vessels with their cargoes are certain to be looted and burned as was the case with one or more European vessels last summer.
I do not feel called upon to reply to the letter under discussion, until I shall have submitted a copy of it to my Government and taken further instructions. I have, however, the original letter I wrote to the King last summer, but which in consequence of the local authorities to forward it failed to reach him, which I would still be glad to send. It contains an entirely frank statement of the situation as it was then and is now: and its perusal might lead His Majesty to review in the light of reason and justice his former acts, and reconsider his present decision. Your good offices in forwarding this letter might prove of material advantage to the Government of Corea.
In response, I understood you to say that the sending of my letter last spring was an unusual act of courtesy: that acting in the capacity of intermediary for such purposes as I desired would be likely to involve your Government in responsibilities, which had been announced to me from the first you were anxious to avoid: that in your opinion farther correspondence would be productive of no good: and that you must respectfully but positively decline to be the medium for correspondence in the future.
The interview then closed. In connection with and supplementary to what was said at our interview, I beg to leave most respectfully, to enclose for your information a copy of the letter referred to in our conversation. I do this in order that Your Imperial Highness may be able to fully understand the reasonable nature of the demands I was instructed by my Government to make, the spirit of moderation and conciliation, both before and after hostilities occurred, in which they are made, and, when forced by self-respect and honor to resent unprovoked insults and injuries, the narrow limit within which the Admiral confirmed hostile operations. I cannot but think that, after you shall by the perusal of this letter, be made acquainted with the whole question at issue, you will, as an act of justice and friendliness to the Rule of a State, vassal to China, who looked to you for counsel as well as assistance in trouble, conclude to send the original on to the King.
With renewed assurances of my high consideration.
I have the honor to be
Your Imperial Highness’
Obedient Servant
(Sgd) Frederick F. Low
Your Imperial Highness’
Obedient Servant
(Sgd) Frederick F. Low
To His Imperial Highness
Prince Kung
Prince Kung
별지: 漢譯文
十月初十日 美國公使鏤斐迪照會稱 照得九月二十日在貴衙門面見貴親王曁文董大臣 辨論由禮部移送之朝鮮咨文 竝商議別項事 因所議論係最關緊要者 玆欲將彼此面談之件 筆之於書 倘有舛錯遺忘之事 請指出更正 前到貴署 一則面謝貴衙門將朝鮮文件照錄移送 其文內有差謬處 語有不合者 然咎在朝鮮 與貴國無干 本大臣在朝鮮臨行時 囑總辦文案寫書致其官 當經國王照錄移送禮部 書內所記述彼等各情 皆係眞確 至於朝鮮出有怨言 因美員不以禮接待 姑毋議論 卽以其國官員而論 伊係三品 亦無印憑 而我以二品之總辦文案致書 卽是相待以禮 總辦告以公使未經起身之先 在北京已有轉達伊國王之書 所有來意包括在內 據朝鮮官承認伊王已經收到 至於所稱伊國江華鎭撫使稟報 據草芝浦鎭將李濂乘夜揜擊彼遂退碇等語 尤屬無所底止之言 美兵盡其本分 因彼砲擊我船 故拆砲台 其退回亦是水師提督預先有令 遵令而行 如果實係李濂帶有兵丁 伊最加意躱避大砲 再按朝鮮文內意旨 似不知美國與中國爲友邦者 不然伊斷不敢請貴國明降諭旨 開喩美國使臣 其諭旨不但無益 似欲令中國羞辱我國 而不受必懷疾怨 當經貴親王 謂朝鮮此擧實爲糊塗 已經咨覆 不准所請 貴親王大臣均言朝鮮國之政敎各端 與別國往來 俱是十分自主 又言中國與伊國往來情誼 自明朝設立 至今未改 雖係屬國 但有名無實 按此不欲置辨 而就本大臣意見 朝鮮視中國情眞誼實 名分不敢稍紊 顯有確據 請觀兩次咨文節錄 其末次收尾云 蔽邦世守東藩 久蒙殊眷 礽同內服 凡有疾痛 未有不曲軫恩諒 猶恐或傷 帡幪覆幬 天地莫量 今玆憂虞之孔棘 安得不大聲疾呼 而冒凟至此 深增競惶之至等語 因見朝鮮王之意 欲向中國爲其捍衛 以禦各西國入彼境者 如其入境卽求協同驅逐 其國王又引古語天子之陪臣 豈可與殊音異俗者往來各語 是彼不知此乃古風 業已過矣 現今各西國之公使與中國之宰相俱是平行 其國王所言所謂 殊覺難解 除非伊不知中國與西國如何往來之誼猶可 乃分明伊想美國是中華屬邦 與朝鮮同等 何乃以中國友邦大臣與中國親王會商辦事者 竟欲希望中華屬國三品官同權抗論 如果伊知其上國與各西國之往來實在情形 必無前番之衅端 如現在伊知中國與西國之往來實在情形 亦可免招後來之衅端 非本大臣本分敢說中國應作何事 玆欲敬陳所見 因中國似作朝鮮之師保 伊似孩提 孩提有難 未有不盡扶持之力者 恐遇重擔臨肩 似此不但美國可以視中國爲失和睦卽歐羅巴各國亦可以視中國爲失和睦 當經貴親王複說朝鮮國得以自主之話 竝說已告知朝鮮王不能降一諭旨 貴親王又稱不用開喩朝鮮國 卽或我相勸 一則無益 二則彼置若罔聞 至本大臣末次言夏季往朝鮮國商辦美國破船 欲救人命 欲尋回貨物 事是出於萬國公法之定例 與仁愛之大道 竝各國自護之權此三端 朝鮮文內無可辦駮 複査文內雖有飾詞 難以更改 本大臣之意 因不料我船竟被砲所擊 非我開衅端 實彼之妄 故重懲之 亦理所當然 嗣後我國欲作何事 不准我說 據朝鮮轉達之語 稱不欲傷害美船遭風之水手 是否按理欲我國人滿意伊之話 因夏季有西國船一二隻破壞 被焚被竊 現今不欲致復朝鮮 擬照錄伊咨文 寄回我國家 靜候示諭究竟 仍有夏季寄與朝鮮之書之原稿 因朝鮮官不肯收據 我仍願再寄此書 書內所載無非彼時此時實在情形 若朝鮮王接讀此書 可以自鑑其所行 自然順理從公改變伊之主意 貴親王若願寄此書 或於朝鮮有益 當經貴親王稱 春間代美國寄與朝鮮之函 係格外通融 如再爲轉達 恐有連累 此連累早已言欲免却 按此意是再託寄書亦無用處 貴親王敬謹辭却 是爲後來之寄書 彼此晤談至此已完 玆欲補遺所說之話 故照錄夏季寄與朝鮮王之書之原稿 敬書在文內 以備査閱 本大臣作此 因欲請貴親王知我國家囑尋問者 是順理 無奢望 敦和睦 打仗先後皆是如此 及至後來疾怨朝鮮無故之加辱加害 而本國水師提督屯兵一處 自有限制朝鮮爲貴國屬國 有事望相助者 諒必貴親王接讀此照會 洞悉各情 自願代寄原書與朝鮮 實爲義所當然 須至照會者
색인어
- 이름
- Wan-tsiang, Tung-Siun, Li Lien, Li Lien, 鏤斐迪, 李濂, 李濂
- 지명
- China, the United States, Corea, China, Corea, China, China, China, the United States, Corea, China, China, Corea, China, 美國, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 北京, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 美國, 中國, 美國, 中國, 朝鮮, 朝鮮國, 中國, 朝鮮, 中國, 朝鮮, 中國, 中國, 中國, 美國, 朝鮮, 中國, 中國, 中國, 中國, 中國, 朝鮮, 美國, 中國, 歐羅巴, 中國, 朝鮮國, 朝鮮國, 朝鮮國, 美國, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 美國, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮, 朝鮮
- 관서
- the Board of Rites, the Government of China, the Board of Rites, the Government of the United States, the Government of the United States, the Government of Corea, 禮部, 禮部
- 기타
- the King of Corea, the King of Corea
