Sir H.S. Parkes to Earl Granville.—(Received November 28)

(No. 154 Confidential)
My Lord, Tôkiô, October 24, 1882

WITH reference to my preceding despatch, in which I have reported a conversation with the Corean Envoys, I think I should also inform your Lordship of some remarks made to me by Kim Ok Kiun, who visited me before I saw the Envoys. Kim Ok Kiun is mentioned in Mr. Aston’s Confidential Memorandum (inclosed in my despatch No. 140) as unquestionably much the ablest and shrewdest member of the Mission, in which, however, he holds no official position.
He said that his people were anxious to know what foreign Powers thought of the recent action of China in Corea. Was it in accordance with international law? He thought not. International law ought to support a weak Power when oppressed by a strong one. Corea was unfortunately weak; her low civilization was a disgrace, and the recent disturbances would, he feared, have shaken the confidence of Western Powers. She had no army, and was therefore obliged to submit to China and Japan. Troops from both those countries had recently been imposed upon her, but they came with different objects. China had sent a force to restore order and seize the ex-Regent, and had therefore interfered in the internal affairs of Corea, which she had no right to do. Japan had not so interfered, but had confined herself to the settlement of her own questions. He wanted to know what I thought of all this.
That, I replied, was rather a hard question to ask a foreigner, seeing that the interested parties contradicted themselves and each other in their statements as to the position of Corea. Thus, when difficulties occurred between two Western States and Corea some years ago, China had then declared that she had nothing to do with the affairs of that country, but her present action denoted an active degree of interference. Corea, on the other hand, had declared herself independent in her Treaty with Japan, but had recently stated, in letters addressed by the King to the Sovereigns of several Western States, that she was dependent on China and yet retained the sole control of her internal and external affairs. International law was clear enough in regard to the relations of independent States, but those of dependent States were governed by the circumstances of each case, and the degree of dependence varied in almost every instance. The right of China to interfere in Corea must therefore depend upon the conditions of her suzerainty. If her interference were limited to the restoration of order, she would have done Corea some service.
Kim Ok Kiun replied that whether it would be so limited or not remained to be seen, and the way in which the ex-Regent had been captured and treated by China was offensive to Corea. The letters of the King to which I had alluded proved that China has no right to interfere either in the internal or external affairs of Corea, as those letters were written by the dictation of China. He wished to know whether a dependent country could make such Treaties as Corea had made with the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. He thought not. Those treaties were also the work of China. They, as well as the letters of the King, were drafted by her, and she cannot go back upon them. “You must know,” he added, “that Chinese officers managed everything connected with the British Treaty, and were present when it was signed. All these proceedings constitute an agreement on the part of China with Corea, and amount to a recognition of the independence of Corea. He wished to know what Western Powers thought of the question, and if the three which he had named felt any doubt as to the position of Corea. He hoped that they would hear and weight the statements of both sides.
The letters of the King were calculated, I observed, to occasion doubt, as they declared that Corea was both dependent and independent.
“Can the letter to the Queen be withdrawn?” he inquired.
“That,” I said, “would scarcely serve your purpose if you rely upon it as a recognition by China of your independence.”
“Then you need not answer it,” he observed.
“In that ease,” I rejoined, “the declaration of dependence would remain, and the letter could be used by Corea or China whenever it suited the purpose of one or the other to do so,”
“Corea would accept the letter if you sent it back,” was his next remark.
“That could scarcely be done,” I said, “except by the request of the King, as to return the letter of a Sovereign, unasked, would be an affront.” Did he think that the King would make such a request?
To this he replied evasively that he thought the Envoy would speak to me on the subject, but it was not referred to by the latter at the interview which I have reported in my preceding despatch.
Kim Ok Kiun closed his remarks by saying that he hoped the British Treaty would be ratified as soon as possible.
I observed that I had no knowledge of the views of my Government on the subject of the Treaty, but that I should not be surprised if some delay were caused, either by doubts as to the position of Corea, or by the recent disturbances in that country, or in consequence of it being found necessary to consider some of the provisions of the Treaty.

I have, &c.
(Signed)　　HARRY S. PARKES