Memorandum respecting Corea

THE question of establishing political and commercial relations with Corea first arose in 1854.
In August of that year Sir John Bowring, who was at that time Superintendent of British Trade in China and Governor of Hong Kong, addressed a despatch to Lord Clarendon upon the subject of Corea, in which he said -
“My attention has for some time been called to the Kingdom of Corea, as one of those hitherto in accessible regions, which, by the force of present circumstances and the irresistible pressure of future events, must ere long be opened to the commercial enterprise of Western nations, and I hope to induce your Lordship to move Her Majesty to honor me with Plenipotentiary powers, which may enable me, should a favourable opportunity present itself, to establish commercial relations with the Corean people.
“The country is in a state of great degradation and misery, and I cannot convey to your Lordship a more lively picture of the condition of Corea than will be found in an extract from a Latin letter(which was inclosed) written by a native Corean, who has visited Europe under the protection of the Propaganda, and who has returned to his country, in which the Catholic missionaries have again reestablished themselves, after an exclusion of nearly thirteen years.
“There is reason to believe that the Russian Government has been long looking with an ambitious and covetous eye upon the Corean territory, and that the presence of the Russian fleet in these seas, the movement down the River Amoor, and the depôt lately established in Saga-lien, have been co-operative to view upon Corea.
“The population is believed to amount to about 10,000,000 souls, of which 200,000 inhabit Seoul, the capital city.
“There is a nominal dependence upon China, very similar to that recognized by Siam and Cochin China. Tribute is regularly sent. Acts of submission are from time to time recorded: but the Chinese Government exercise no real authority, and seems never to interfere with the jurisdiction of Corean functionaries. The authority of the King is absolute, so absolute that high officers of the Crown destroy themselves on receiving the Royal Order to commit suicide, even by slow process of starvation.
“I am informed there would be a considerable demand for white cotton goods were their importation allowed, but all communication with foreigners is most strictly prohibited. The ordinary dresses of the people are made of home-manufactured silk, cotton, and flax. Woollen garments unknown. Corea is celebrated for the production of a paper strong enough for garments, which I have seen exposed for sale in China.
“Two principal factions are said to divide all authority and influence beyond the Court circle. The Nobles are oppressive, and the people trodden down. Communication are difficult: bad roads and few navigable rivers.
“The precious metals are rarely seen, and all payments are made in Chinese cash. The rate of interest inordinately high, 30 per cent. per annum being the minimum value of money.”
In compliance with the request contained in this despatch, full powers were forwarded to Sir J. Bowring to enable him to conclude a Treaty with Corea, but he was at the same time informed by Lord Clarendon that “so little was known concerning that country, its produce and inhabitants, that it was difficult to form any opinion as to the advantages to be derived from such a Treaty as he contemplated, but that it could scarcely be anticipated that it would lead to any very important results.”
On receipt of these full powers, Sir J. Bowring admitted that he did not see any probability at that moment of his being able to employ them for the protection and advancement of British interests unless Corea should become a field where Russian ambition might seek development: and a few months afterwards he reported that he had been informed by Catholic missionaries that the Russian Government had opened communications with the Corean authorities, with a view to the obtaining a Treaty of Amity and Commerce; but he added that he had heard, generally, that the negotiations had led to no result.
It may here be mentioned incidentally that in 1855 the French frigate “Virginie” surveyed a part of the Corean Coast in the neighbourhood of the Seoul River.
In October 1865 Mr. Morrison visited the west coast of Corea, He found the people nowhere hostile, and at one place, where most of the smuggling trade with China was carried on, very friendly. The English gun-boat was, however, refused supplies all along the coast.
Mr. Morrison reported that the smugglers imported into Corea shirtings, drills (a favorite article with the Coreans), camlets, opium, sugar, satin, and tortoise-shell; and exported ginseng, salt, fish, gold, iron and steel, timber, leather, paper, cotton, and rice.
He also said that resin abounded in the Corea in a crude state, but was not an article of trade, and that the cotton was very favourably spoken of by the Chinese.
In sending home a copy of Mr. Morrison’s Report, Mr. Wade said that, on reading it, it had occurred to him that it might be of advantage to British trade to establish commercial relations with Corea.
The French Roman Catholic missionaries were at this time very jealous of the Russian proceedings on the north-east coast of Corea, but Mr. Wade remarked that if there were on foot any designs worth frustration, they would be most surely frustrated by the opening of the coast, and that, as a survey of the coast would, in his opinion, be the best means of familiarizing the people with the presence of Englishmen, and of obtaining the preliminary knowledge essential to any further advances, he had addressed a letter to the Prince of Kung with reference to the refusal of the Corean people to supply provisions to one of Her Majesty’s gun-boats.
In this letter he said: -
“I have just been informed that one of Her Majesty’s gun-boats, while cruizing a short time since along the west coast of Corea, was refused provisions, the people alleging that they could not sell any without incurring the displeasure of their authorities.
“I trust that the Imperial Government may be enabled to prevent the recurrence of such acts of discourtesy. There is no European who desires to see Eastern nations preserve their independence that does not deplore their adherence to a system of non-intercourse, commercial or political, which it rests with any Western Power that may find a pretext for resorting to force to subvert, and the subversion of which by any single Power would probably be followed, as we have seen in Cochin China, by the subjugation or repartition of the offending State. If the Kingdom of Corea understood its own interests, it would at once invite all foreign nations to trade with it. But ever if it be so ill-advised as still to entertain its interdict on foreign commerce, it should at least be careful not to affront a Naval Power by conduct such as that to which I have requested your Imperial Highness’ attention.”
Mr. Wade said, however, that” he had not come straight to the point with His Highness, because, although the vassalage of the King or Corea was complete, the Emperor of China had no resident at his Court, and Chinese Ministers were always careful to proclaim, when Corea was alluded to, that she governed herself, and that China did [not?] interfere in her internal economy.”
Sir R. Alcock was then instructed, at the request of the Admiralty, to use his influence in order to obtain for Her Majesty’s surveying vessel, which was about to proceed to the northern portion of the Chinese Seas, facilities for the examination of the coasts of the Corea.
Sir R. Alcock accordingly address a note to the Prince of Kung, in which he reminded him of what had occurred n October 1865, when one of Her Majesty’s gun-boats was refused provisions, and expressed a hope that the influence of His Imperial Highness would be exerted to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding so inhospitable in itself, and so calculated to imperil the interests of peace.
To this note the Prince of Kung replied that the French were about to commence hostilities against Corea, and that when, in the previous year, the Yamên of foreign Affairs was applied to by the French Minister, M. Barthémy, to inform Corea that missionaries wanted to enter that country, it became the Prince’s duty to tell him that, “although Corea was a dependence [of China], she had never been so otherwise that as a nation accepting the Calendar of China, and periodically bringing tribute; “that her adoption of Christianity being a question in which China, consequently, could not constrain her, it would not be possible for China to take on herself to write officially to the Corea respecting the missionaries, and the Prince added that “it would at that moment be more difficult than ever for the Yamên of Foreign Affairs to write to Corea regarding the intention of the British Government to send a surveying vessel to her coasts.”
In May 1866 Mr. C. Alabaster sent home a Private and Confidential Memorandum, in which he reported that certain agents of the house of Jardine, Mathison, and Co. had gone in a steam-vessel, the “Glengyle,” to a port in Corea, with a view to opening direct trade with that country.
Mr. Alabaster said these agents were provided with presents for the King of Corea, “and that they had succeeded in opening communications with the authorities, whom they interested with a list of musical boxes, China silks, &c., intended for the King, but that they did not wait for an answer from the Court, as it would take twenty days to procure it, but that they purposed returning.
The Mandarins, it appears, expressed great alarm on the arrival of the “Glengyle,” which they at first imagined to be a vessel of war, and made great objections to the receipt of the letter for the Court, but at once offered supplies: and that the chief local authority, described as equal in rank to a Taotai, was eventually induced to visit the vessel.
The people were said to be very well disposed, but to live in great dread of the Mandarins, who, in their turn, appeared to stand in great awe of the Supreme Government.
Mr. Alabaster then gave a description of the trade which it was proposed to open.
On receipt of this Memorandum, Sir R. Alcock was instructed to consider and report whether it would be advisable or practicable to make a Treaty with Corea, and if so, how it had better be done. To this he replied, in October following, that, under the existing circumstances, it was undesirable to attempt to enter into any negotiations with a view to making a Treaty with the King of Corea. Her Majesty’s Government entirely concurred with Sir R. Alcock in this view, but full powers were shortly afterwards sent to him, constituting and appointing him Her Majesty’s Plenipotentiary for negotiating with the King of Corea in the event of an opportunity offering itself.
It may here be mentioned that the following were the views entertained at this time by Dr. Winchester, Her Majesty’s Consul at Shanghae, with regard to Corea: -
In a letter to Mr. Hammond he said: -
“Corea is of more geographical and political importance than commercial. Still, even in a trading point of view, its relations may ultimately prove considerable.
“Corea, like Loo Chew, oscillates between the two Great Powers who are its nearest neighbours, China and Japan, and manages, by a few compliances, to maintain a tolerably effective independence. On the north-west coast the Chinese influence is felt, on the south-west that of Japan.
“I suppose the Shetlanders of the 15th and 16th centuries were as much Canes as Scotch.
“The conditions of Government in a country so peculiarly situated must be an interesting study.”
It was in this year (1866) that certain events occurred which brought the question of Corea more prominently forward.
In February the King of Corea received intelligence that the Russians had crossed his frontier, and were holding intercourse with his subjects.
At the same time, a Corean Embassy which had been sent to China informed their Sovereign that the Chinese had murdered two Catholic missionaries, and that it would be well to imitate their example. Upon this a general order was given to carry out a persecution against the Christian Churches.
Two French Bishops and seven priests were accordingly arrested, and, after having been cruelly tortured, were beheaded. Many other Christians were murdered, others were ordered to renounce their faith, some (including three French missionaries) succeeded in making their escape; bit the property of the Christians and of their Churches was utterly destroyed.
The Chinese Government at once declined all responsibility for these outranges, and expressed their intention to remain neutral in the event of steps being taken to obtain redress and enforce the punishment of those concerned in them.
As soon as the news of the outrages reached the French authorities, a naval force was ordered to be fitted out for the Corea.
This expedition left Chefoo in September of October 1866. A landing was effected at Kanghoa, a town, capable of holding from 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, which was captured without resistance. After a few day’s unsuccessful negotiations with the Coreans, the French advanced towards Seoul, the capital, but they were opposed at a certain point on the river, and, although they drove the Coreans from their positions, still, as the whole country rose to oppose them, and a Siberian winter was setting in, the pursuit was abandoned, and the French troops make their way back to the place where they had landed, burning villages and destroying Government property on the way to the extent of some millions of dollars. All the French vessels of war then returned to Chefoo.
On the 2nd September of the same year an American schooner, the “General Sherman,” was wrecked on the Corean coast, when all the crew and passengers, among whom were two British subject, were murdered, with the exception of a missionary (Mr. Thomas) who had previously visited the country, and who was reported to have escaped.
In sending home a report of this massacre, Sir R. Alcock said that there was little doubt that this vessel, which nominally cleared from Tien-tsin with a cargo for Papiette, the nearest Russian port, and freighted with sundries by an English merchant, was in reality destined for the Corean coast, where it was lost, and that it went there for the purpose of trading in a country where all trade of intercourse with foreigners was strictly prohibited under penalty of death.
In fact, Mr. Seward admitted that the vessel was engaged in carrying munitions of war, with the intention of aiding the Coreans in resisting the attempt of the French to obtain satisfaction for the murder of their missionaries; and in a conversation which passed between Mr. Seward and the British, French, and German Ministers at Washington on the subject, the view generally entertained was in favour of the Americans attempting, in the first instance, to come to an understanding with the Coreans through the good offices of the Chinese Government.
Sir R. Alcock subsequently addressed a note to the (Chinese) Tsung-li Yamê-n in which he expressed a hope that in the event of the two Englishmen who were on board the “General Sherman” being still alive and detained in prison by the Coreans, they might be released and forwarded to Pecking; to which the Tsung-li Yamên replied that there were no English captives in Corea; that it was the custom of the Coreans to succour and relieve shipwrecked sailors; but he added that, “although Corea was tributary to China, yet it was independent in its Government and entire master of its own actions, with which China never interfered.”
In March 1868 Mr. Aston made a Report to Sir H.S. Parkes upon the subject of Corea, in which he said that the Japanese asserted that they possessed great influence in Corea. That this influence, they said, rested on the two conquests of Corea by Japan, since the latter of which, three hundred years ago, their relations with that country had been maintained without interruption, and also on the acknowledged superiority of the Japanese civilization; and that they maintained that Corea was still, in a certain sense, under Japanese protection.
Upon this assertion, Mr. Aston remarked that the Japanese trade with Corea was under the control for the Japanese officials, who treated the Corean merchants with great indignity, driving them out of their settlements as soon as the market was over; although, he added, a precisely similar course was pursued by the Corean officials towards Chinese merchants at the fairs on the Chinese frontier.
In May 1868 another incident occurred, which it may be as well to place on record.
A subject of the North German Confederation, named Ernest Oppert, hired a Prussian vessel, the “China,” at Shanghae, shipped on boared of her 21 Manilamen, 7 English sailors, 1 American, and over 100 Chinese, with arms and digging tools. The vessel then went to Nagasaki, where she also took on boared a French priest, and then proceeded under the guidance of this so-called French missionary to the coast of Corea, and there made an armed descent with intent to rifle a King’s tomb in which it was reported great treasure lay buried. Fortunately this nefarious and buccaneering expedition ended in disaster rater than booty. Attacking without scruple the Coreans whom they found in their path, and being attacked in return by a larger body, they had to throw away their arms and escape as best they could.
The Prussian Representatives at Peking would appear not to have acted with adequate energy in the affair, and a correspondence passed between Sir R. Alcock and Baron Rehfues upon the subject. Sir R. Alcock informed Baron Rehfues, in one of his letters, that the violation of the Corean territory by subjects of ships under the Prussian flag, was calculated to inflict discredit on European nationalities in general, and was not free from danger to all. He alluded to the hostilities which had shortly before taken place between the French and the Coreans, as well as to the case of the American vessel “General Sherman,” and he then remarked to Baron Rehfues that if proceedings such as those undertaken by Oppert were allowed to pass without steps being publicly taken to vindicate the laws so signally outraged, the crew of no European ship that might thereafter be wrecked on the Corean coast could have any hope of escaping ill-treatment or death; whereas before, a shipwrecked drew had been most humanely treated and sent back to China by the Corean authorities.
An American citizen who took part in the expedition was tried before the United States’ Consul-General and Assessors at Shanghae, but in sending home a Report of the trial, Sir R. Alcock expressed his regret that justice should have again failed to overtake evident and notorious guilt.
In September 1868 a copy of a Report which had been addressed to the Admiralty by Vice-Admiral Sir Henry Keppel, giving an account of a visit which he had recently made to Russian Tartary was received at this Office from Sir R. Alcock, and in his despatch forwarding it, he observed that the general drift of all Sir Henry Keppel's observations tended to confirm the very common belief that Russia contemplated, as time and opportunity might serve, to absorb Corea and obtain a port or ports further south than Papiette, which was liable to be frozen over in serve winter.
Shortly after this it was reported that the French expedition had excited a strong feeling in Corea against foreigners generally, one result of which had been the expulsion of the Russians from the Broughton Bay Settlement and the destruction of their settlement boats and other property; that a collision had taken place between the Russian gun-boat “Loble” and Corean soldiers in the neighborhood of the Seoul River, resulting in the bombardment of a Corean town.
In July 1869 a letter was received from the Admiralty inclosing a Report from Vice-Admiral Sir Henry Keppel stating that he had been credibly although unofficially informed that on the 18th May an American expedition consisting of nine vessels had left Shanghae for the Corea, ostensibly to demand satisfaction for the murder of the crew of the “General Sherman,” but with the supposed object of opening the country and of obtaining a port.
Nothing further was reported respecting this expedition; but on the 16th May, 1871, an expedition to the Corea was undertaken by the United States’ squadron in the Chinese Seas commanded by Admiral Rogers, and accompanied by Mr. Low, the United states’ Minister to China.
Before leaving Pecking, Mr. Low have full information to the Chinese Government on the subject of his proposed expedition.
About the 28th May it reached the outlet of the river on which Seoul, the capital, is situated.
On the 1st June two of the vessels composing the expedition proceeded up the river accompanied by four steam-launches, passing forts on either side, and not anticipating any opposition, but on reaching a sharp and narrow bend in the river which was commanded by guns on both sides, a heavy fire was suddenly opened upon them by the Americans and with such precision that the Corean forts were silenced after a few rounds; but not deeming it advisable to proceed further without reinforcements the American vessels descended the river.
In July 1875 it was reported that difficulties were arising between Japan and Corea; that Russia and Japan had come to an understanding with regard to an attack on Corea; and that Japanese and German vessels were surveying the west coast; and, in view of the important events which it was thought would be likely to take place in those seas, it was suggested by Sir H.S. Parkes and Admiral Ryder that Port Hamilton should be occupied by a British force.
Port Hamilton is a spacious and well-sheltered harbour, formed by a group of three small islands off the south end of Corea, and its position is considered to be the key to the Corean Strait. It was first visited by Europeans in 1845, when Sir E. Belcher surveyed it, and gave it the name of the then Secretary of the Admiralty. At this time (1875) it was occupied by a few Coreans.
Lord The Earl of Derby was, however, of opinion that it was not desirable to set to other nations the example of occupying places to which Great Britain had no title, and Sir H.S. Parkes was so informed.
In September following, the Japanese gun-boat “Unyokan” was fired upon by the Coreans. This led to negotiations for the conclusion of a Treaty for the opening of one or more of the Corean ports to Japanese, as well as of vessels driven into port by stress of weather; and for explanation of the attack upon the “Unyokan.”
The Tsung-li Yamên informed Sir Thomas Wade that China would not interfere in the Corean question, and on the 27th February, 1876, a Treaty was concluded between Japan and Corea, which was published by the Japanese on the 25th of the same mouth; the 1st Article ran as follows; —
“Chôsen, being an independent State, enjoys the same sovereign right as does Japan.”
In alluding to this Article Sir H.S. Parkes observed; “ I learn that this Article, which was naturally acceptable to the Coreans, is also valued by the Japanese (by whom it was suggested), as denoting the Corea in independent of China.
In October 1876 a Supplementary Treaty to the “Treaty of Friendship and Trade Regulations” of the 26th February, 1876, was concluded between Japan and Corea.
These “Additional Article” as they were also called, related to a variety of subjects, and contained this clause relating to foreign vessels stranded on the coast or driven into Corean ports by stress of weather; —

“Article X
“Although no relations as yet exist between Corea and Foreign countries, yet Japan has, for many years back, maintained friendly relations with them; it is therefore natural that in case a vessel of any of the countries of which Japan thus cultivates the friendship, should be stranded by stress of weather or otherwise on the coast of Corea, those on board shall be treated with kindness by Corean subjects; and should such persons ask to be sent back to their homes, they shall be delivered over by the Corean Government to an Agent of the Japanese Government residing at one of the open ports of Corea, requesting him to send them back to their native countries, which request the Agent shall never fail to comply with.”
In May of the present year the United States entered into negotiation with the Corean Government for the conclusion of a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and although a Treaty was eventually signed, it would appear that it is not likely to be ratified by the United States’ Congress.
The first Article, as it appeared in the draft of the Treaty, ran as follows;
“Corea is a dependency of China, but has always been autonomous as regards both internal government and foreign relation. Corea and America having mutually agreed that the King of Corea enters into this Treaty in accordance with international law relating to autonomy, the latter undertakes to carry it out faithfully, while the President of th United States will not interfere with Corea’s relationship of dependency on China.”
But as this Article gave considerable umbrage to the Japanese, it was omitted from the Treaty signed by Commodore Shufeldt, and transferred to a letter from the King of Corea to the President of the United States. In this letter (dated the 24th May, 1882) the King said; —
“Although it is the case that Corea has been so far a vassal of China, the entire conduct of her internal affairs and of her foreign relations remains in her own hands, as an independent Sovereign State.
Corea is now concluding a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the United States, and commission has been given to the States Councillor Shên Hsien, as Minister Plenipotentiary, and to the States Councillor Chin Hung-chi, as his Deputy, to proceed to Jên Shan and conclude the matter.
His Corean Majesty distinctly pledges himself to accept and observe the provisions of the Treaty, in accordance with international law, as binding upon independent Sovereign States.
“With regard to Corea’s being vassal to China, America has absolutely no concern with whatever obligations Corea may be under in this respect.”
On the 6th, June Vice-Admiral Willes, acting under instructions which he had received from the Admiralty to watch the proceedings of the Americans at Corea and to secure the advantages of the most-favoured nation for this country, in the event of the Americans concluding a Treaty with the Coreans, succeeded in concluding a Treaty to that effect with the Representatives of the King — (but which has not yet been ratified)
As in the case of the American Treaty, no reference was made to the dependency of Corea on China, but the King addressed a letter to the Queen (dated the 30th May, 1882), in which His Majesty said: —
“The King of Great Chôsen makes a communication.
“He begs to say, as regards Chôsen, that it is simply a dependency of China, but that its internal administration and its external intercourse are entirely and in all respects within his discretion and control as an independent King. In now making a Treaty with each other, the States of Great Chôsen and Great England shall conduct their intercourse in every respect on the footing of equality. The King of Great Chôsen expresses his willingness that all the stipulations of the proposed Treaty shall be arranged in strict accordance with the international usage of independent States. On the other hand, Great Chôsen, being a dependency of China, shall fully discharge in all particulars the duties of that relation, but this shall in no wise affect of concern Great England. Moreover, before Deputies are appointed to negotiate the Treaty (he) has deemed it incumbent to set forth clearly, as above, his position, and he begs the Queen of Great England that the matter may be arranged on the understanding herein above set forth.”
In forwarding home this Treaty, Admiral Willes said; —
“The Government [of Corea] is vested in the King as an absolute monarch. He calls to his assistance a Board of Councillors. At the present moment there are two parties in the state, of almost equal strength; The one is Progressist, headed by the King and ready and anxious to admit foreign intercourse, the other entirely opposed to any such policy.
In a private letter to Lord Tenterden Sir H.S. Parkes made the following remarks on this Treaty. He said; —
“This and the American Treaty are believed here to be Li Hung Chang’s work. Besides opening Corea to the Western Powers, which has become essential to the security of China, there is, I fancy, much in these Treaties which is intended to the address of Western Powers in China, as well as to that of Japan. The declaration of dependency on China is a tu quoque to Japan for having persuaded Corea to declare herself independent in the Japan Treaty, and for Japan’s action in Loochoo. It may also be intended to guard against Corea acting wholly independently of China, as Siam has done. How we are to recognize this quasi-de-pendent condition, and at the same time to treat Corea as an equal, the King being placed on the same footing as the Queen, appears to me rather a puzzling problem. This declared suzerainty will be annoying to Russia and Japan, and will promote the aim of the former to attach the latter to her interests.”
In a later despatch Sir H.S. Parkes sent home another translation of the letter said to have been addressed by the King of the Corea to the president of the United States, and in doing so he observed that it was noteworthy that it appeared in the Chinese vernacular press at a date which afforded good ground for the conclusion that it was drafted at Tien-tsin and taken by Commodore Shufeldt to Corea, in order that the King might be allowed the option of acknowledging his dependency on China, either in the Treaty or in the form of a letter to the Sovereigns with whom he was treating.
The following is the translation of the letter from the King, which was went home by Sir H.S. Parkes; –
“The King of Corea acknowledges that Corea is a tributary to China, but, in regard to both foreign policy and domestic legislation, it enjoys full independence. Now, as we wish to establish Treaty relations between Corea and the United States, we hereby appoint his Excellency Shên and the Assistant Chin, as above described, to repair to Jen-shan, to confer upon the matter with due caution; and the King of Corea distinctly undertakes, on his own responsibility, to carry out the Articles contained in the Treaty that shall be made, to which both parties must conform. As regards the tributary relations subsisting between Corea and China, these have nothing to do with the United States.”
It will be observed that in one of these letters Corea is spoken of as being a vassal of China; in another of its being a “dependency;” and in another of its being a tributary to China.
On the 8th July a Treaty was concluded between Germany and Corea containing stipulations similar to those which were embodied in the American and English Treaties; but it has not yet been ratified, so far as I am aware.
Shortly after these Treaties and letters, above referred to, were signed, an event occurred which brought the question of the Corea still more prominently to public notice.
On the 23rd July last an attack was made on the Japanese Legation in Corea. Several of the members of the Japanese Legation were wounded, and of the police escort two were killed and three were wounded; and the Minister and twenty-six of his staff escaped on board the British surveying ship, and were landed at Nagasaki. The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed to Sir H.S. Parkes his belief that the anti-foreigner party had risen against the King for concluding foreign Treaties.
This was followed by the news that the Government of Corea had been overthrown, that the Queen and many leading statesmen and Japanese officers in Corean service had been murdered, and that the father of the King who was hostile to foreigners had seized the Government.
In commenting upon these events, Sir H.S. Parkes said the Japanese Government feared that disorder in Corea might attract intervention either from a powerful Western nation, whose frontier was conterminous to Corea, or from China, who had just then given evidence of a readiness to interfere by sending to that country a force of ten gun-boats and 1,000 troops (which was afterwards increased to 2,000 and then to 30,000), together with a Chinese Commissioner escorted by three vessels; but that the principal desire of the Japanese Government was to be allowed to obtain themselves from Corea, and without recourse to force, reparation for the injuries which had been caused to Japan by the uncontrollable enmity for each other of the rival Corean factions.
On the arrival of the Chinese troops they at once entered the capital (23rd August), and a Proclamation having been issued by the Chinese Commissioners declaring that, as “Corea was a dependency of China, the Emperor had determined to put a stop to the terrible disorders and unheard-of scenes of butchery which had occurred there,’ they proceeded to arrest the chief ringleader, the King’s father and ex-Regent, Tai-wön-Kun, and to send him to Tien-tsin, at which place he was sentenced by the Chinese to remain for ever, and never to be allowed to return to his native country.
The Chinese Minister at Tôkiô, however, informed the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, under instructions from his Government, that as China regarded Corea as a dependency, they considered it their duty to require the Corean Government to afford satisfaction to that of Japan, and also to see that the Japanese Legation at Seoul was adequately protected.
Sir H.S. Parkes then went on to recount the conversation which he had had with the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs upon the general question. He said;

“Japan only knew Corea as an independent State, which she was declared to be in the 1st Article of her Treaty with Japan. China had never objected to that declaration, she had never attempted to intervene in the differences which had occurred between Japan and Corea before that Treaty was signed in 1876, and, until this moment, she had never conveyed any intimation to Japan that relations of dependency existed between her and Corea. China had also ignored all responsibility for Corea when difficulties arose between that country and France in 1866, and again with the United States in 1871. Although Japan might not be disposed to insist that the complete independency of Corea, as declared by Treaty, should be maintained, if the Corean nation desired to exchange that position for one of dependency on China, still, the Japanese Government could not admit the right of China to interfere at this juncture. They would, therefore, claim to be allowed to settle pending questions by themselves alone, but would be willing to enter subsequently on the consideration of the relations between China and Corea, if the Chinese government so desired. The latter question, the Foreign Minister added, was one which, if it were raised by China, would not only concern Japan, but also the European Powers who had recently concluded Treaties with Corea, and China would have to reconcile any position she might assume with the declarations which the Foreign Minister understood had been made to those Powers by Corea that she possessed independent autonomy in all her external as well as internal affairs. Japan would, therefore, seek the opinions for those Powers, and would endeavour to conform her action to the course they deemed it expedient to adopt after full investigation had been made into the subject, and the respective responsibilities of China and Corea had been clearly ascertained and defined.”
The Japanese also sent a force consisting of 10,000 men to Corea, accompanied by a Japanese Minister (Mr. Hanabusa), who arrived at Seoul on the 16th August, and was received by the King on the 20th. Negotiations ensued, and on the 30th August a Convention was concluded between Japan and Corea, whereby it was agreed that the ringleaders of the attack on the Japanese Legation should be severely punished; that a public funeral should take place of the Japanese who fell victims to that attack, as well as those who were otherwise murdered Japanese; that Japanese troops should be stationed at the capital for the protection of the Legation, to be withdrawn at the end of a year at the discretion of the Japanese Minister; that a special Envoy should be sent to Japan with a Royal letter of apology; that the Treaty limits of the three open ports should be extended; that Yokachin (a town in the immediate vicinity of the capital) should be opened to trade in one year; and that Japanese Diplomatic and Consular officers, with their families and servants, should be free to travel throughout the interior on passports issued by the local authorities and to be properly escorted. In consequence of these proceedings on the part of the Chinese, the question is now asked whether Corea is regarded by Her Majesty’s Government as an independent State or as a dependency of China.
The Japanese view of the question is fully discussed in extracts from Japanese newspapers sent home by Sir H.S. Parkes, whilst the Chinese view is given in the “Peking Gazette” sent home by Mr. Grosvenor, but to attempt to epistomise these documents would extend this paper to an inconvenient length, and it has been thought sufficient, therefore, to summarize the facts recorded in the preceding pages of this Memorandum.

SUMMARY
Corean View of the Question.
There is no doubt that the Coreans pay tribute periodically to China, and comply with certain ceremonial observances.
On the 27th February, 1876, they concluded a Treaty with Japan, and recorded therein that they were an independent State.
In May 1882 they concluded a Treaty with the United States, and on the 24th of the same month the King of Corea wrote a letter to the president of the United States, in which he said; “Although it is the case that Corea has been so far a vassal of China, the entire conduct of her internal affairs, and of her foreign relations, remains in her own hands as an independent Sovereign State,” and His Majesty added that with regard to Corea being a vassal to China, America had absolutely no concern with whatever obligation Corea might be under in this respect.
On the 6th June last Corea concluded a Treaty with the English Admiral Willes, and in a letter written by the King to Her Majesty at the time of its conclusion, the King said, “As regards Chôsen, it is simply a dependency of China, but its internal administration and its external intercourse are entirely, and in all respects, within his discretion and control as an independent King;” and His Majesty added that although Great Chôsen, being a dependency of China, would fully discharge, in all particulars, the duties of those relations, they would in no wise affect Great Britain.
On the 30th August, 1882 Corea concluded a Treaty with Germany.
And so recently as October last the leader of the Liberal party in Corea, who accompanied the Corean Mission to Japan, informed Sir H.S. Parkes that they were an independent nation; they denied the right of China to interfere in the way in which they had recently done in the internal affairs of their country, and declared that the tributary relations of Corea to China were confined to certain ceremonial observances; although these statements scarcely harmonize with the recent attitude of the King towards the Chinese Emperor.

Japanese View of the Question.
The Japanese have at times declared that they possessed great influence in Corea; and so recently as 1868 they asserted that Corea had for a very long period been, in a certain sense, under their protection. It is a fact that there has existed a Japanese official settlement or establishment at Sorio, in Fusan; but, on the 27th February, 1876, a Treaty was concluded between Japan and Corea, in which Corea was recognized as an independent State, and as enjoying the same sovereign right as Japan herself; and in August last the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Sir H.S. Parkes that “Japan only recognized Corea as an independent State;” and on the 30th of the same month another Treaty was concluded between Japan and Corea.

Chinese View of the Question.
The Chinese also have generally been believed to possess great influence over Corea; but they have declared (until this year) that Corean governed herself, and that China did not interfere in her internal economy.
In 1865 they informed the French that, although Corea was a dependency of China, she had never been so otherwise than as a nation accepting the calendar of China, and periodically bringing tribute.
In the same year they refused to write to Corea regarding the intention of the British Government to send a surveying ship to their coasts.
In the same year they declined all responsibility with regard to the murder, by the Coreans, of the French missionaries and the destruction of the property of the Christians, and expressed their intention to remain neutral in the event of steps being taken to obtain redress and enforce the punishment of those concerned in those outrages.
In 1868, when the American schooner General Sherman was wrecked on the Corean coast, and the passengers and crew murdered, the Chinese declared that “although Corea was tributary to China, yet that it was independent in its government and entire master of its own actions, with which China never interfered.”
In 1875, when differences arose between Japan and Corea, and a Japanese gun-boat was fired upon by the Coreans, the Chinese Government declared that it would not interfere in the Corean question.
But on the occasion of the attack made in July last on the Japanese Legation in Corea, the Chinese Government, contrary to the policy which she had pursued during recent years, at once interfered and sent a naval and military expedition to Corea to restore order, and they informed the Japanese Minister for Foreign affairs that they had done so because “China regarded Corea as a dependency.”

Views of British Authorities and others on the Question.
The following are the view entertained by others with regard to the independence of Corea:
In 1854 Sir John Bowring said that there was a nominal dependence of Corea upon China; that tribute was regularly sent; that acts of submission were from time to time accorded, but that the Chinese Government exercised no real authority.
In 1865 Mr. Wade said that although the vassalage of the King of Corea was complete, yet that the Chinese Ministers always proclaimed, when Corea was alluded to, that she governed herself, and that China did not interfere in her internal economy.
In 1866 Dr. Winchester, then Her Majesty’s Consul at Shanghae, said that Corea managed, by a few compliances, to maintain a tolerably effective independence; and in June last Admiral Willes said, “The Government of Corea was vested in the King as an absolute Monarch.”
Grosier, in his description of China, and Rees, in his “Cyclopaedia,” both say the Sovereign of Corea exercises an absolute sovereignty over his subjects, although he himself is a vassal and tributary of the Emperor of China.
Ellis, in his narrative of Lord Amhurst's Embassy to China, ways the Corean Sovereign is entirely independent in the internal administration of his country; although he adds that ambassadors are dispatched at stated periods by the King to pay, in his name, homage to his Paramount, and to convey the regular tribute.
Gutzlaff says although the Kingdom of Corea is powerful enough to maintain itself independent, the King has long submitted to pay tribute to the Celestial Empire four times a-year; that the King cannot reign without the Imperial sanction, nor can he himself confirm the choice of a colleague of successor; that all these must be sanctioned by the Court of Peking; but that in all other respects, it is an independent Kingdom.
Malte-Brun says, “Le pays est gouverné par un Monarque heréréditaire, tributaire de la Chine.”
* * * * *
“Chez lui, le Roi est despote absolu.”
The “Encyclopaedia Britanica” says, “the King of Corea, though a vassal of the Chinese Empire, is, within his own country, an absolute Monarch.”
In the Appendix will be founded further extracts from the above and other works, bearing on the subject of the independence of Corea.

E. HERTSLET
Foreign Office
December 19, 1882

Appendix
Grosier, in his work on the general description of China and its tributary countries, published in 1788, says :—
“This kingdom is governed by a Sovereign, who exercises an absolute authority over his subject, although he himself is a vassal and tributary of the Emperor of China. As soon as this Prince dies, the Emperor deputes to his son two of the nobility of his Court, to confer upon him the title of Kouévang; that is to say, of King. When the King of Corea is afraid that the succession may occasion disturbance after his death, he appoints some Prince his heir and begs the Emperor to confirm his nomination. The prince receives on his knees the investitute of his State, and distributes among the Emperor's Envoys the sum of 800 taels, and several other customary presents. The Minister of Corea repairs afterwards to Pecking, to prostrate himself before the Emperor, and present him the tribute. The Princess who has espoused the King cannot assume the title of Queen until she has received it from the Court of Pecking.
“The Japanese conquered this kingdom about the end of the sixteenth century; but the Coreans, assisted by the Tartars, who had subdued China, drove them from their country. The Mantchews, thus masters of Corea, endeavoured to compel their new subjects to shave their heads, after their manner, and to adopt the Tartar dress. This innovation irritated their minds, and occasioned a general revolt throughout all Corea, which was at length appeased by the prudent care of the reigning family.
“This Prince is absolute master of all the wealth of his subjects, which he inherits after their death.
“Every seventh year all the freemen of the different provinces are obliged to go Court in rotation, and to keep guard round his person for two months; so that, during this year, all Corea is in motion and under arms.
“China imports every year a considerable quantity of the paper of Corea. It is made of cotton, is as strong as cloth, and those who write on it make use of a small hair-brush or pencil; before it can be written on with our European pens it must be done over gently with a little alum-water; without this precaution it would not bear the ink. With this paper the Coreans partly pay the tribute due to the Emperor; they supply the Palace every year with it. The Chinese do not purchase it for writing, but for filling up the squares of their sash-windows, because, when oiled, it resists the sand and rain much better than theirs; they also use it as wrapping-paper; it is likewise serviceable to their tailors, who rub it between their hands until it becomes as soft and flexible as the finest cotton cloth, instead of which they often employ it in lining clothes. What is most singular in this paper is, that if it be too thick for the purpose intended, it may be easily split into two or three leaves; and these leaves are even stronger, and less liable to be broken, than the best paper of China.
“We have said that the King of Corea is not only obliged to receive from the Emperor of China the investiture of his States, but that his Princess cannot assume the title of Queen without the consent of the Court of Pecking. This usage and the rights of the Emperor of China seem to be fully established in the following petition, which was presented to the Emperor Rang-hi in 1694 by the King of Corea; –
“I, who am your subject, am a man whose destiny has been unfortunate; I have been a long time without having a successor; but at length one of my concubines has brought me a male child. His birth filled me with inexpressible joy; and immediately formed the resolution of exalting the mother who thus increased my happiness; but in this I committed an error, which has been the source of much uneasiness and suspicion; I obliged the Queen, my spouse, to retire to a private house, and I made my second wife Queen in her stead. I shall give your Majesty a particular detail of the whole affair. When I at present reflect that my spouse received the patent of her creation from your Majesty, that she has managed my family, assisted me in sacrifices, served the Queen my great-grand-mother, and the Queen my mother, and that she wore mourning with me for the space of three years, I am sensible that I ought to treat her with honour and respect; but I have allowed myself to be carried away by imprudence. After this rash action I was exceedingly sorry; and now, that I may gratify the desires of the people of my kingdom, I am resolved to restore my spouse to her Royal dignity, and send back my concubine to her former condition. By these means order will be established in my family, and a foundation laid for good morals and for the reformation of the whole State.
“I, who am your subject, though I have disgraced, by my ignorance and stupidity, the title which I inherited from my ancestors, have however served your Supreme Majesty these twenty years, and I owe what I am to your beneficence- which covers and protects me like heaven. There is no affair, whether public or domestic, of whatever nature it may be, that I dare to conceal from you; I have therefore been emboldened to importune your Majesty so often on this subject; indeed, I am ashamed thus to transgress the bounds of decency; but as this affair nearly concerns that good order and regularity which should be observed in my family, and as it is my duty to declare the wishes of the people, justice impels me to make them known to your Majesty with all due respect.'
“To this petition the Emperor replied by the following Edict; ‘Let the Court to which it belongs deliberate, and let the result be laid before me.’
“The examination of this affair belonged to the Court of Ceremonies, which determined that the request of the King of Corea ought to be granted; and this Judgement was ratified by the Emperor. In consequence of this, several of his officers carried magnificent vestments to the Queen, letters of re- establishment, and every thing necessary to restore her to her former rank, with the usual formalities.
“The following year the same King of Corea sent another Memorial to Kang-hi, who, after having read it, issued the following Edict;
“I have seen the compliment of the King; I know it; let the Court to which it belongs take cognizance of it. The style of his petition is improper; it is wanting in respect. I command that it may be examined, and that the Court, after deliberation, will inform me.”
“After this order the Li-pou, or Court of Ceremonies, condemned the King of Corea to pay a fine of ten thousand Chinese ounces of silver, and to be deprived, for three years, of the presents annually given him when he sends a deputation to pay his tribute.
Ellis in his narrative of Lord Amherst's Embassy to China in 1816, says;–
“Corea, called Kao-li by the Chinese, is bounded on the north by Man-tehoo Tartary, on the west by Leo-tong; the line of separation on this side is marked by a palisade of wood, and it has not been unusual to leave a portion of land on the frontiers unclaimed by either nation. Other accounts describe the River Ya-lon- as the boundary.
“This country was brought under subjection by the Chinese in the year 1120 before the Christian era, from which period it has continued a connection more or less intimate, according to the political situation of the superior State.
“It has been the object of the Emperors of China to reduce Corea to the situation of a province; in this they have never succeeded for any length of time; and the present has most generally been the state of the relation between the two countries—that of a state governed by native hereditary monarchs, holding under a Lord paramount, on condition of the ceremony of homage, and the payment of a small tribute. The Japanese, for a time, established themselves in some provinces of Corea, but seem to have abandoned their conquest, from the difficulty of maintaining a possession so distant from their resources.
“Corea was subdued by the Man-tehoo Tartars before the conquest of China was attempted, and their tributary connection has suffered no interruption since the establishment of the Ta-tsing dynasty. On the death of the King of Corea, his successor does not assume the title until an application for investiture has been made, and granted by the Court of Peking. A Mandarin of rank is deputed as the Emperor's representative, and the regal dignity is conferred on the candidate kneeling; the ceremony altogether nearly resemble the feudal homage of ancient Europe. Several articles, the production of the country, and 800 taels, or ounces of silver, are immediately offered by the King, either as a fee of investiture of as the commencement of the tribute. The name of the regning family is Li, and the title is Kou-i-wang. The Corean Sovereign is entirely independent in the internal administration of his country. In regard to foreign policy, the active interference of China may be inferred from the opposition made by the Coreans, in the instance of Captain Maxwell, to any communication with the interior of the country; an opposition, as has already been remarked, evidently arising from the positive laws of the kingdom. Corea is divided into eight provinces, and these into minor jurisdictions. The capital, King-ki-tao, is situated in the centre of the kingdom. The principal rivers are the Ya-lou and the Tamen-oula.
“Ambassadors are dispatched at stated periods by King of Corea to pay, in his name, homage to his Paramount, and to convey the regular tribute. This consists of ginseng, zibelines, paper made from cotton, much preferred, from its strength, for windows and a few other articles the produces of the country. There is reason to believe that the tribute is rather sought for as a mark of subjection than a branch of revenue. The Corean Ambassadors do not take precedence of Mandarins of the second rank, and are most strictly watched during their stay in China. It is somewhat singular that equal restrictions are imposed in Corea upon the Representative of the Emperor.”

Rees’ Cyclopaedia, published in 1819, says:—
“Corea, in geography, called by the a Chinese Kao-li, and by the Mantchu Tartars Sol-go, a Kingdom of Asia, in the form of a peninsula, extended between China and Japan, and everywhere surrounded by the sea, except towards the north, where it is connected with Chinese Tartary, which bounds it on the north; it is bounded on the east by the sea and isles of Japan; on the south by the Straits of Corea, separating it from Japan, and by the ocean: and on the west by the Yellow Sea, which parts it from China. This kingdom is commonly reckoned to be 200 leagues in length from north to south, and 100 leagues in breadth from east to west. The great number of shoals and sandbanks which surround the coasts of this peninsula render access to it by sea equally dangerous and difficult. Its least distance from Japan in only 25 leagues. The origin of the Coreans is very obscure. It appears, however, that this peninsula was at first inhabited by different tribes, which composed several States; and that, in process of time, they united under the same Government, and formed one kingdom, which was called Kao-li. The Coreans were most probably of Tartarian extraction.
This kingdom is governed by a Sovereign, who exercises absolute authority over his subject, although he himself is a vassal and tributary of the Emperor of China.”
[But this passage, as well as the remainder of the article, is evidently copied from Grosier. See P.24.]
Gutzlaff, in his “Journal of Three Voyages along the Coast of China in 1831, 1832, and 1833,” says: -
“The king of Corea may well be styled’ the Sovereign of then thousand Isles, for the whole coast is studded with islands of every shape. Though his kingdom is powerful enough to maintain itself independent, he has long submitted to pay tribute to the Celestial Empire four times a-year.
The kingdom was known to the Chinese as early as the times of Yaou. At different periods they attacked the ‘middle kingdom’ and often proved victorious. It was natural that they should early adopt the Chinese writing character, the use of which prevails among them to this time. Several domestic broils, which seem to have been fomented by Chinese policy, together with the variety of tribes inhabiting the country, seem to have kept this kingdom in barbarism, from which it did not emerge; while their neighbours, the Chinese as well as the Japanese, made rapid advances in civilization. As soon as the Ming dynasty ascended the Chinese throne (A.D. 1368), the Coreans sent an Ambassador to Hungwoo, the Emperor desiring the inauguration of their King with the Imperial Seal. This was readily granted, and Corea was henceforth considered a tributary kingdom. During the reign of Tai-kosama, the warlike Emperor of Japan, Corea was repeatedly invaded by the Japanese, and finally conquered. The Chinese tried in vain to expel the Japanese, for they maintained themselves with the utmost bravery; and so far from yielding up Corea, they disquieted all the Chinese coast with their fleet. It was at this time that Christianity, or rather Popery, was first promulgated in Corea: for the Generals for the Japanese, and many of the soldiery, were Christians. When Tai-Kosama died the Japanese General-in-chief withdrew to his own country (1598) after the war had raged seven victories lost to the Japanese. The Chinese did not fail to establish their authority as supreme masters, to whom all the earth should bow. Since that time the country has undergone little change. The King cannot reign without the Imperial sanction, nor can he himself confirm the choice of a colleague of successor; all these must be sanctioned by the Court of Peking. In other respects it is an independent kingdom, and the Chinese meddle very little with their internal administration. Its subjects are not allowed to visit other countries, nor are even Chinese admitted to settle among them. They trade with the frontiers of Japan at Tuymataou, which is opposite to the Corean Island of Kin-shang. Their trade with Chinese and Tartars is carried on at Fung-hwang-ching, the frontier town of Mantehou Tartary. This traffic is conducted with great secresy and circumspection, lest one nation should spoil the other, and thus tend to subvert their ancient regulation. Nothing is more ridiculous than to see the people so tenacious ancient and useless forms, rather than desirous to keep pace with the match of improvement.”
The King of Corea, though a vassal of the Chinese Empire, is within his own country an absolute monarch, with power of life and death over the noblest in the land. He is the object of almost Divine honours; it is sacrilege to utter the name which he receives from his Suzerain, and that by which he is known in history is only bestowed upon him after his death by his successor. To touch his person with a weapon of iron is high treason; and so rigidly is this rule enforced that Tieng-tsong-tai-oang suffered and abscess to put an end to his life in 1800 rather than submit to the contact of the lancet. Every horseman must dismount as he passes the Palace, and whoever enters the presence-chamber must fall prostrate before the throne. Should the ignoble body of a subject be touched by the Royal hands, the honour thus conferred must be over after commemorated by a badge. In consequence of such punetilious etiquette, personal access to the King is exceedingly difficult; but as, according to theory, his ear ought always to be open to the complaints of his people, an appeal to his authority is nominally permitted. He is expected to provide for the poor of his realm, and there are always a large number of pensioners on the Royal bounty. The Princes of the blood are most jealously excluded from power, and their interference in the slightest degree in a matter of politics is regarded as treason. The Nobles, however, have within the present century extended their influence, and infringed on the Royal prerogatives.”