Immediately following the conclusion of the Treaty at Lhasa, the attitude of the Tibetans was friendly enough. The Ti Rimpoche wrote to the Government of India expressing the gratitude of the Tibetans for the reduction of the indemnity from 75 to 25 lakhs of rupees, and for the promise to restore the Chumbi Valley after three years if the provisions of the Treaty were duly observed. “The two parties have now commenced friendly relations,” wrote the Regent, “and we hope that for the future they will be firmly established, and that the Viceroy will vouchsafe his aid in making this friendship last for a very long time to the benefit of the Tibetans.”

The Yutok Sha-pÉ, one of the councillors who had negotiated the Treaty at Lhasa, was appointed a kind of Special Commissioner to Gyantse to arrange about the opening of the trade-mart, and in a speech he made during a visit to Captain O’Connor he said that the Tibetans were quite satisfied with the arrangements regarding the trade-marts, and that they all hoped that the newly cemented friendship would be of long duration, and that a flourishing trade would spring up.

The National Assembly also wrote a letter to Captain O’Connor saying that they were rejoiced in heart, and gave thanks.

Some exception was taken by the Tibetans to our building a house in Chumbi, and to the maintenance of the telegraph-line, both of which had been erected during the course of the Mission. But on the whole the intercourse was friendly, and these written and personal communications showed that the Tibetans had entirely reversed their former attitude of positively refusing all direct intercourse with us.

On the opposite side of Tibet, in that part not directly under the Lhasa Government, but inhabited by people of the Tibetan race and of the Lamaist religion, matters were, however, very different, and in the spring of 1905 serious troubles, including the massacre of both Chinese officials and Europeans, occurred.

Around Batang for years past the Tibetans had been very turbulent. In February, 1905, according to Chinese accounts, a Chinese official was forcibly robbed near Batang, and the Chinese Amban, Feng, sent a hundred Tibetans belonging to a regiment in Chinese employ to arrest the robbers. Thereupon great crowds from the surrounding country assembled in the neighbourhood of Batang, declaring that Feng had no right to establish his permanent residence there. Communication by water was cut off, and on April 2 the people, “in collusion with the Lama brigands of the Ting-lin monasteries, surrounded Batang.” The Roman Catholic Mission Chapel was burned, and subsequently PÈres Mussot and SouliÉ were murdered here, and four others at Litang. The Chinese general was shot in the main hall of the Yamen, and Feng only escaped through a back gate. He was, however, followed up and surrounded in a house to which he had fled. He tried to escape from this also with seventy-three men, but of these only three escaped, and all the rest, including the Amban Feng himself, were killed.

A French priest of the Tibetan Mission, when informing Mr. Litton, our Consul at Teng-yueh, that the revolt appeared to be spreading to all the large lamaseries in North-West Yunan, thus analyzed the cause of the disorders.

For some two years past the Szechuan Government had been endeavouring to bring Batang and the adjacent country under the ordinary jurisdiction of the Chinese officials, which was violently resented by the Lamas.

The new Amban, or Assistant Amban, who was murdered, had been delaying his journey at Batang for some months, and his followers had been guilty of pillaging the Tibetans.

The considerable party which was still attached to the deposed Grand Lama had been active in intrigues against the Chinese officials, who, it was argued, had been proved by recent events quite incapable of safeguarding the privileges of the Lamaist body, and incompetent to exercise the rights of suzerain over Tibet—that is to say, the Lamas had realized the utter feebleness of the Chinese Government.

Before the outbreak at Batang the probably false rumour was spread about that the deposed Grand Lama had “descended from Heaven,” had arrived in Tachien-lu, and was about to return to Lhasa.

It was said that secret orders had been issued by the great lamaseries at Lhasa to Batang and other places for the murder of all Chinese and Europeans near the Tibetan frontier.

The Lamas about Litang had a further feud with the Chinese officials, who in the previous year seized the kenpu, or chief steward, of their lamasery and chopped off his head.

It may be noted that on March 30—that is, four days before the attack on Feng took place—Consul-General Campbell had written to our Minister saying that Feng was headstrong, and that it was evident that his plans must create serious disturbances unless the Chinese garrisons in East Tibet were strengthened.

Later, on May 12, Consul-General Goffe wrote from Chengtu that a Chinese official at Batang stated that the local tribes had no intention of rebelling against the Chinese Government, and that Feng had brought his death upon himself by his harsh and unpopular measures. The local chiefs also sent a petition to the Chinese Viceroy of Szechuan complaining of the various unpopular changes introduced by Feng, which had incensed the people beyond measure. They repudiated any intention of throwing off their allegiance to China, but they warned the Viceroy that any despatch of troops to Litang and Batang would exasperate the people and provoke a general rebellion.

The Chinese official view of these transactions is given in a joint memorial from the General and the Viceroy to the Throne. The memorial stated that Feng recognized that unless the power of the Lamas, who had absolute control of the tribesmen, was reduced, there was certain to be serious opposition to the measures of reform he proposed to introduce. He accordingly requested that the old law limiting the number of priests should be put in force, and he further proposed that for a space of twenty years no one should be allowed to enter the priesthood. The Lamas resented this, and spread reports that Feng’s troops wore foreign dress and were drilled in the foreign fashion. They also represented that the changes he wished to introduce were solely in the interests of foreigners. His protection of the missionaries was adduced as a further proof of his partiality towards foreigners.

The Tibetan frontier continued in a disturbed condition. The great lamaseries of North-Western Yunan rose against the Chinese, and on August 3 Consul Litton reported from Teng-yueh that the rebellion was the work of the exiled Dalai Lama’s partisans. He said it was easy to raise disorders, particularly on account of the ill-judged attempt of the Szechuan authorities to force their jurisdiction on the Batang people. Mr. Forrest, a botanist who was travelling in the district at the time, wrote to Mr. Litton that, so far as the Chinese military were concerned, the whole affair had now become a mere squeezing and looting expedition. The disorderly character of the Chinese troops and the corruption of their officers constituted, he said, a serious danger, because the whole country might be raised thereby.

With more information before him, Mr. Litton wrote, on August 12, that the reason why the great lamaseries which in the previous May, when there were no Chinese troops at Atentse, had refused to join the Batang insurgents had now risen against the Chinese was to be sought in the violence and extortion of the Chinese Prefect. He had been at Atentse since the end of May with some 400 or 500 troops, who had been looting everywhere, which was hardly surprising when, according to a French priest living in the district, he received neither men nor money from his Government in spite of his warnings of the growing seriousness of the situation. Mr. Litton observed, further, that this was the third serious rebellion which had occurred in Yunan during the three years of Viceroy Ting’s tenure of office, and that none of these rebellions would have occurred if the most ordinary efficiency and honesty had been exercised. Viceroy Ting’s government, he said, was a calamity to his own people and a nuisance to his neighbours.

Only three days after he wrote this he received a report that Mr. Forrest, together with PÈres Dubernard and BourdonnÉ, had been murdered.

The Chinese, in face of these occurrences, now took strong measures to put down the insurrection. Chao Erh-Feng, then Director of the Railway Bureau, and now Resident for Tibet, was ordered in April, 1905, to proceed with 1,000 foreign-drilled troops, and 2,000 more which he could raise on the way, to Tachien-lu. Some difficulty was experienced in collecting together the necessary troops, but in August it was reported that the Tibetans had suffered a reverse near the Batang frontier, and that the Chinese Commander was then at Batang itself. Later information showed that, in consequence of Chao’s severity and breach of faith, a serious revolt had again broken out in Batang, that Chao’s position was critical, and reinforcements were being hurriedly despatched from Chengtu in response to an urgent demand for them which he had addressed to the Viceroy. But he eventually established his position there, and, as will be related below, converted it from a self-ruling State into a Chinese district.

In January, 1906, Chao set off with some 2,000 foreign-drilled troops, equipped with rifles of German pattern and four field-guns, for Hsiang Cheng, a lamasery at one time the home of over 2,000 Lamas. It is situated about a week’s journey south-east of Batang on a high plateau surrounded by mountains, and the territory under its sway had so far been prohibited to Chinese, any who did enter being skinned alive. In the winter of 1905 a small Chinese official with twenty soldiers had come to this stronghold with a summons to the Abbot to swear his allegiance to China, but the Lamas had treated him with contumely.

Chao now bombarded the monastery, but the walls were 20 feet high and 4 feet thick, and at the four corners stood high square towers pierced with loopholes for rifle-fire, and against this the bombardment was ineffective. The country people harassed the besiegers from the surrounding hills, and the Chinese were unable to make an entrance till June 19, and then only by a ruse. The garrison, by deaths, sickness, and desertion, had been reduced to 1,000 men. The Abbot himself had, in despair, committed suicide. But Chao got some friendly Tibetans to say they had come as a relief, and induce the garrison to open the gates. The ruse was successful. The Lamas streamed out of the back gate, but only to find themselves surrounded by Chinese, who slaughtered them almost to a man.

For excessive severity in connection with this siege and in other places, and for extensive looting of the lamasery, Chao was impeached by a censor. He nevertheless succeeded in establishing Chinese authority, and, before the year was closed, in converting Batang into a Chinese province, laying down for its governance regulations^[54] which are particularly worthy of note.

The head T’u Ssu (chief) and the assistant T’u Ssu having been beheaded, the office of T’u Ssu was abolished for ever. Both the Chinese and the tribesmen of Batang were henceforth to be subjects of the Emperor of China, and subject to the jurisdiction of Chinese officials; and the district of Batang, together with the Chinese and tribesmen resident therein, were to be under the administration of Chinese officials. The people were forbidden to style themselves subjects of the Lamas or of the T’u Ssu. And being subjects of the Emperor, every man was to shave his head and wear the queue. Headmen of villages were to be elected for triennial periods by the villagers themselves, and were to be removable by the villagers if they acted unjustly. Under each district official (presumably a Chinaman) were to be three Chinese and three Tibetans, to be jointly responsible for the collection of the land tax and the hearing of suits, and all six of them were to know both the Chinese and Tibetan languages. The land tax (payable in cash), according to the fertility of the land, was to be 40, 30, or 20 per cent. of the total yield, which is considerably higher than the land tax in British India. Officials in future were to pay for their transport—a very wise and necessary provision. Highway robbery was to be punishable with death, whether anyone was killed or not. The gross ignorance of the tribesmen having led to the murder of Feng and the French priests, a Government school would be established which all boys from the ages of five or six would have to attend. The barbarous methods of burial practised by the tribesmen were to be abolished. Habits of cleanliness were inculcated. Adult men and women were urged to wear trousers in the interests of morality, and children were to be compelled to wear them. Each family was to take a surname. Slavery was to be abolished. The people were warned against smoking opium. The streets were to be properly scavenged, urinals erected, and cemeteries were to be made in low-lying places, and not on high ground.

Thus in every detail did Chao determine to make Batang a component part of China. But the most significant portion of the regulation is that relating to the Lamas.

The Ting Ling Monastery had been razed to the ground. Orthodox temples would be constructed by officials, but no other places of worship would be allowed, and no Lamas would be permitted to reside even in these. Those Lamas who took no part in the late disturbances might continue to reside in the country villages, and such of them as wished would be permitted to quit their habit. What those Lamas who did take part in the disturbances might do is not mentioned. The number of Lamas in each temple was not to exceed 300, and a register was to be kept of the names and ages of the Lamas of each temple.

Temple lands were to pay land taxes like other land, though previously this had not been done. On the other hand, the custom of making annual donations in kind to the Lamas was to be abolished. So that the Lamas, while they had to pay more, were to receive less. The Lamas were not to interfere in the administration of the districts by the Chinese local authorities. And as a final thrust at the priestly power, it was pointed out to the people of Batang how ineffectual the prayers recited by the Lamas really were, for they had not been able to save the Dalai Lama, himself a living Buddha, from being defeated by foreign troops and forced to fly for his life.

No one, after reading this, will wonder that the Dalai Lama again fled from Lhasa when he heard that this very same Chao, who had since absorbed still other parts of Eastern Tibet, was advancing on Lhasa with a Chinese army.

The introduction of as large a Chinese element as possible into the district was, Chao Erh-Feng informed our Consul-General at Chengtu a year later, what he was anxious to bring about. He desired, by the above outlined means, and by the inviting of Chinamen of the farming class to settle in Batang, to check the Lamas.

Batang being reduced, Chao turned his attention to Derge, the largest State in Eastern Tibet, and also the most favourable to the Chinese. For four years there had been strife, of the type to which we are so accustomed on the Indian frontier, between two brothers. The unsuccessful appealed to Chao. Chao seized the chance; supported him with 500 Chinese and 500 Tibetan soldiers; drove the other brother out; established his protÉgÉ on the throne, and constructed a road from Derge to Batang. Eventually he reports to the Emperor that the Chief is a man of no ability, and had made repeated requests to him to be allowed to hand over the whole of his territory to China. He had also handed over his seal of office, saying that the strife between him and his brother had caused indescribable suffering to the people. Chao pointed out to the Emperor that the situation of Derge was important strategically, and that with it under proper control the Chinese would be able to strengthen Central Tibet, and at the same time screen the frontier of Szechuan. If the Chinese Government insisted on the Chief carrying on the succession, there would be no end to the sufferings of the inhabitants, and other States would get drawn into the disturbances. He therefore recommended that China should take measures to guard against such eventualities.

It is not difficult to read between the lines of this report. The Reform Council, in a memorial on this proposal that “the native State of Derge should be allowed to adopt our civilization and come under our direct rule,” said that it was laid down in the Imperial institutes that native Chiefs who did not govern properly, must be denounced and punished either by the substitution of other Chiefs or by their territory reverting to China. The present conditions on the frontier were not the same as before, and the Chinese must take proper measures to keep their boundaries secure, and to put an end to tribal feuds. Derge was of great strategical importance to Szechuan and Tibet. The people were extremely anxious to come under Chinese jurisdiction. Chao’s proposals should therefore be acceded to, and “the entire State of Derge be brought under Chinese rule.” The Chief was to be allowed the hereditary title of captain, and to wear a button of the second class and the peacock feather, and allowed about £500 a year from the revenue of his own State. Whatever he had got out of Chao by his appeal, certainly Chao had taken a good deal out of him.

Chao’s next move was to Chiamdo, which, according to a traveller^[55] who was there in 1909, was not a part of Lhasa territory, but had a Government on the Lhasa principle, with an incarnated Lama as ruler and three chief Lamas as his Ministers, all residing within an enormous monastery. The whole population was said to amount to 84,000 families, say about 420,000 people. Chiamdo is the most important place between Ta-chien-lu and Lhasa, and though the State sends tribute every six years to Peking, it only did so because it received much more valuable presents in return, and as a fact, the Chinese residents in Chiamdo had to serve the Lamasery. At the end of last year there was a great deal of unrest, this traveller reported, among the Tibetans in this and other parts of Tibet owing to the appointment of Chao, whom they feared and hated, and everywhere they were preparing and drilling soldiers, and in some places had already declared their independence, and refused to give transport to Chinese officials travelling.

Chao, however, early in 1910 was entirely successful in his operations, and occupied Chiamdo, Draya, and Kiangka without suffering any casualties.

Such were the relations between the Chinese and Tibetans in those parts not directly under the Lhasa Government. That they must have profoundly affected the inhabitants of Tibet proper must be very evident, and what the effect was I will relate after I first traced the relations between the Tibetans and ourselves at this time and followed the adventures of the Dalai Lama himself.

Returning, then, to the relations between ourselves and the Tibetans on the other side of Tibet, we find representations being made by both parties as to what each considered breaches of the Treaty by the other. The Tibetans objected to our administering Chumbi during our occupation, and we objected to their reconstruction of the fortifications of Gyantse Jong.

The Government of India replied to the Tibetans that the action taken by us in the Chumbi Valley called for no explanation or defence, as it was in strict accordance with the terms of the Treaty. As we subsequently gave up the Valley, the point is not of any importance.

On the other hand, by levying trade dues at Phari, by the stoppage of free trade vi Khamba Jong, by the stoppage of the letters of the British Trade Agent at Gartok, and by their failure to pull down defence walls on the road between Gyantse and Lhasa, Captain O’Connor considered^[56] that the Tibetans had clearly contravened the provisions of the Treaty.

This change of attitude the Government of India attributed to fear on the part of the Lhasa authorities lest the Dalai Lama should on his return punish them for complaisance to our demands; and also to expectations that the negotiations which the Chinese Commissioner was at the time conducting in Calcutta might result in a material modification of the Convention in favour of Tibet.

Any real change there might have been at this time was, anyhow, only at Lhasa itself, for the Tashi Lama from Shigatse, spiritually an equal of the Dalai, visited India in the winter of 1905–06, was received by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales and Lord Minto, travelled to all the Buddhist shrines, saw some great manoeuvres under Lord Kitchener, and returned to Tibet impressed with the cordiality of his reception.

As to the Dalai Lama himself, after fleeing from Lhasa on our approach in August of 1904, he made his way to Urga, in the North of Mongolia, where there is another incarnate Lama of great spiritual influence. But the two incarnations do not appear to have hit it off very well, and the Dalai Lama’s presence is reported to have nearly ruined the other both in revenue and in reputation. They had a disagreement as to the division of fees, and the Dalai Lama accordingly left Urga, in September, 1905, for Sining, on the borders of Tibet.

Early in the following year we hear of him sending the indispensable Dorjieff to St. Petersburg with a message and gifts for the Czar. Of this the Russian Director of the Asiatic Department informed our Ambassador, stating that His Majesty had granted Dorjieff an audience, and had accepted the gifts, which consisted of an image of Buddha, a very interesting copy of Buddhistical liturgy, and a piece of stuff. The message was to the effect that the Lama had the utmost respect and devotion for the “Great White Czar,” and that he looked to His Majesty for protection from the dangers which threatened his life if he returned to Lhasa, as was his intention and duty. The answer returned to him was of a friendly character, consisting of an expression of His Majesty’s thanks for his message and of his interest in his welfare. The Russian Minister said that he wished the Ambassador should hear exactly what had occurred, as the Press would probably make out that the audience had a political character.

The Czar also sent the Dalai Lama a complimentary telegram, in regard to which our Ambassador spoke to Count Lamsdorff in April, 1906. The Russian Chancellor informed Mr. Spring-Rice that the policy of his Government with regard to Tibet was the same as that of His Majesty’s Government—namely, that of non-intervention. They wished the Dalai Lama to return as soon as possible to Lhasa, as they considered his continued presence in Mongolia undesirable, but he had fears for the safety of his person on his return, and had asked for a promise of protection. The telegram had been sent in place of this promise, and was designed to reassure, not only the Dalai Lama himself, but also the Emperor’s Buddhist subjects, with regard to whom the Russian Government would find themselves in a very embarrassing position should any mishap befall the Lama. The intention of the Russian Government, Count Lamsdorff informed our Ambassador, was to keep us fully informed in order to avoid all misunderstanding.

Here it may be convenient to interpolate an account of the agreement which was come to in the following year between the Russians and ourselves in regard to Tibet. By the Convention of August 31, 1907, generally known as the Anglo-Russian Agreement, the suzerain right of China in Tibet was recognized, but, “considering the fact that Great Britain, by reason of her geographical position, has a special interest in the maintenance of the status quo in the external relations of Tibet,” the following arrangement was made. Both parties engaged “to respect the territorial integrity of Tibet, and to abstain from all interference in its internal administration.” They, secondly, engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." This engagement was not, however, to “exclude the direct relations between British Commercial Agents and the Tibetan authorities provided for in Article V. of the Convention between Great Britain and Tibet of September 7, 1904, and confirmed by the Convention between Great Britain and China of April 27, 1906;” nor was it to “modify the engagements entered into by Great Britain and China in Article I. of the said Convention of 1906.” It was to be clearly understood that Buddhists, subjects of Great Britain or of Russia, might enter into direct relations on strictly religious matters with the Dalai Lama, and the other representatives of Buddhism in Tibet; the Governments of Great Britain and Russia engaging as far as they were concerned not to allow those relations to infringe the stipulations of the present arrangement. Thirdly, the two Governments engaged not to send representatives to Lhasa; and they further agreed neither to seek nor to obtain, whether for themselves or their subjects, any concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, and mines, or other rights in Tibet; and no part of the revenues of Tibet, whether in kind or in cash, were to be pledged or assigned to Great Britain or Russia, or to any of their subjects.

On this agreement I would here make only this remark—that it embodied yet one more concession to Russia of what we had obtained at Lhasa three years before. By the Lhasa Treaty the Tibetans engaged not to cede territory, admit foreign representatives, grant concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, mining or other rights, “without the previous consent of the British Government”; and in the event of concessions for railways, mines, etc., being granted, “similar or equivalent concessions” were to be granted to the British Government—that is to say, we were not precluded from ourselves acquiring any of these concessions if, at any time, we should want them; but the Russians were precluded from obtaining them until our consent had been given. This was the position under the Lhasa Treaty. Under the Anglo-Russian Agreement we have bound ourselves not to try to get any of these concessions. Out of deference to Russia, we had already given up the right we had acquired to send a British officer to Lhasa, and the right to occupy the Chumbi Valley, and we now gave up the right to exclude Russians from concessions in Tibet if we so desired, and engaged not to obtain any concessions ourselves. I am not here contending that, from grounds of general policy, this deference to Russia may not have had some countervailing advantages. All I am concerned to show is that, in regard to Tibet, we gave up in the Anglo-Russian Agreement yet another of the results we had obtained at Lhasa in 1904.

Annexed to the Agreement was a re-affirmation of the declaration we had made that the occupation of the Chumbi Valley should cease after the payment of three annual instalments of the indemnity, provided that the trade-marts had been effectively opened for three years, and that in the meantime the Tibetans had faithfully complied in all respects with the terms of the Treaty. But to this affirmation was added a most important supplementary statement. “It is clearly understood,” it said, “that if the occupation of the Chumbi Valley by the British forces has, for any reason, not been terminated at the time anticipated in the above declaration, the British and Russian Governments will enter upon a friendly exchange of views on this subject.”

Before we evacuated the Chumbi Valley the Indian Government represented^[57] that the trade-marts had not been effectively opened since Mr. Chang’s appointment to Tibet, whatever might have been the case before, and that in other respects the terms of the Treaty had not been faithfully complied with; and they referred to this annexure to the Anglo-Russian Agreement as contemplating the possibility of a temporary postponement of evacuation. But no advantage was taken of the annexure, and the only material guarantee we had for the observation of the Treaty was given up.

To return to the Dalai Lama. Throughout the year 1906 he seems to have wandered about the borders of Tibet in the Kansu Province of China, either in the vicinity of Sining or of Kanchow; but in the spring of 1908 he began making towards Peking. In March he was at Tai-yuan-fu, where he put up in a specially made encampment outside the town; then he marched to Wu-tai-shan, a holy place in North Shansi, the huge following which accompanied him preying upon the country like a swarm of locusts, and tending to create a general feeling of dissatisfaction.

From Wu-tai-shan he sent a messenger and a letter to our Minister at Peking. The letter was merely complimentary, and was similar to what the Dalai Lama had addressed to the other foreign representatives in Peking. The messenger said the intention of the Dalai Lama was to return to Tibet in response to the repeated petitions of the Lama Church. Sir John Jordan told his visitor that he could not say how His Majesty’s Government would view his intended return to Lhasa. During his absence relations between India and Tibet had improved, and the rupture of friendly relations in 1904 had been the outcome of misunderstanding, which had arisen under the Dalai Lama’s administration. The messenger explained that this had been due to the fact that the Dalai Lama’s subordinates had persistently kept him in the dark as to the true circumstances in State affairs; but the Dalai Lama now knew the facts, and was sincerely desirous, on his return, to maintain friendship with the Government of India, whose frontiers were those of Tibet.

Mr. R. F. Johnston, of the Colonial Service, District Officer at Wei-hai-wei, and the author of the most remarkable of recent books of travel, “From Peking to Mandalay,” paid the Dalai Lama a private visit in July, and reported that he was treated in a dignified and friendly manner. The Dalai Lama told him that he wished his relations with the British to be friendly, and that “he looked forward to meeting British officials from India when he returned to Tibet.” Mr. Johnston said he appeared to treat his Chinese guard with contempt, and that there was bad feeling between the Chinese and Tibetan soldiers, while the Chinese officials complained that they were ignored by the Lama.

The Dalai Lama informed another visitor that he had received several pressing invitations to go to Peking, and on July 19 an Imperial Decree was issued, summoning him to the capital. He arrived at Peking by rail on September 28, 1908. The reception at the station was not specially remarkable. He was borne in his own chair to an improvised reception-hall, where representatives of the Wai-wu-pu (Board of Dependencies), and the Imperial Household awaited him; he was then escorted to the Huang Ssu (Yellow Temple), outside the north wall of the city. It had been built by the Emperor Shun-chih especially for the reception of the Dalai Lama who came to the Chinese Court in 1653 to pay homage to the new Manchu dynasty. He had been the first Chief Pontiff of Tibet to visit Peking, and the present Dalai Lama was only the second.

An emissary from the Dalai Lama came to Sir John Jordan two days later, with a message of greeting. The Minister acknowledged this, and gathered that the Dalai Lama would be pleased to see him. Sir John Jordan was not, however, prepared to visit the Dalai Lama till he had been received in audience by the Emperor, and about this there was some difficulty. The Chinese Government did not find the Pontiff an altogether tractable personage to manage. In the rules for his reception it had been laid down that “the Dalai Lama would respectfully greet the Emperor, and kotow to thank his Majesty for the Imperial gifts.” Kotowing is kneeling and bowing down till the forehead touches the ground. The Dalai Lama was prepared to kneel, but not to touch the ground with his forehead. This might be called “a puerile question of etiquette.” But etiquette means a great deal in Asia, and the audience had to be put off eight days, till this point and the question of the interchange of presents had been satisfactorily arranged. The Dalai Lama was to offer forty-seven different kinds of presents, but was to kneel and not kotow; it was likewise laid down that when being entertained at a banquet by the Emperor, he was to kneel on the Emperor’s entrance and departure.

Though the Russian and British Ministers worked in consultation with one another in regard to visits to the Dalai Lama, and agreed to communicate their intentions informally to the Wai-wu-pu, the Chinese evidently did not care to encourage these visits. The foreign Ministers were informed that the Dalai Lama would receive the members of their staffs on any day except Sunday, between the hours of twelve and three, and that the introduction would take place through the two Chinese officials in attendance, one of whom was Chang Yin-t’ang, the negotiator of the recent Anglo-Chinese Convention, and the same official who had done so much in Tibet to stop direct intercourse with us. This was obviously intended to reduce intercourse with the Dalai Lama to the level of commonplace Western functions, and to deprive him of any further opportunity of ventilating his grievances to the representatives of the foreign Powers. That the Chinese should thus assert their claim to control the external relations of Tibet was, perhaps, reasonable enough, but our Minister thought it was open to doubt whether their methods would, in the long-run, further their interests in that dependency. Some Chinese were already beginning to doubt whether the Pontiff’s experience at Peking was likely to make him an active partisan of Chinese policy on his return to Tibet.

Sir John Jordan visited the Dalai Lama on October 20, at the Yellow Temple. On arrival he was received by two Chinese officials, one of whom was the afore-mentioned Mr. Chang. After a considerable delay in the waiting-room—whether due to Mr. Chang or to the Dalai Lama is not mentioned—he was conducted to the reception-hall, where he found the Dalai Lama seated cross-legged on a yellow satin cushion, placed on an altar-like table, about 4 feet high, which stood in a recess or alcove draped in yellow satin. The Dalai Lama in appearance was of the normal Tibetan type, thirty-five years old, slightly pock-marked, with swarthy complexion, a small black moustache, prominent and large dark brown eyes, and good white teeth. His hands worked nervously, and his head had not been shaved for ten days.

A few remarks were interchanged regarding the climatic superiority of North China over Tibet, and the Dalai Lama’s journey from Wu-tai-shan to Peking, part of which was performed by train, and then the Dalai Lama made reference to the proximity of India to Tibet. Some time ago, he said, events had occurred which were not of his creating; they belonged to the past, and it was his sincere desire that peace and amity should exist between the two neighbouring countries. He desired the Minister to report these words to the King-Emperor. The message was not in the first instance clearly interpreted by the attendant Lama, but that this was the Dalai Lama’s meaning appeared from what followed. Sir John said in reply that the desire for peace and amity was fully reciprocated by his country; and, on this being interpreted, the Dalai Lama returned to his point, repeated the language he had previously used, and asked that it should be reported to the King-Emperor. The Minister then added that he would not omit to carry out this request. A pause ensued, and then the Dalai Lama said that if the Minister had nothing further that he wished to discuss, he would bid him God-speed, and, in doing so, presented him with a pound or two of “longevity” jujubes. The reception lasted about eight minutes. The whole proceedings were carried out with perfect dignity.

Under the outward aspect of honouring the Dalai Lama, the Chinese now by Imperial Decree emphatically stated his subordinate position. “The Dalai Lama,” said the Decree, “already, by the Imperial commands of former times, bears the title of the Great, Good, Self-existent Buddha of Heaven. We now expressly confer upon him the addition to his title of the Loyally Submissive Vicegerent, the Great, Good, Self-existent Buddha of Heaven.” As Sir John Jordan observed, the additional attributes did not leave much doubt as to the rÔle which the Pontiff was expected to play in the future. He was, above all else, to be the loyally submissive Vicegerent of the Chinese Emperor, and his dependence on the Imperial favour was to be further accentuated by the grant to him of a small personal allowance, also provided for in the Decree.

The Decree laid down, too, that when he arrived in Tibet, he was “to carefully obey the laws and ordinances of the sovereign State,” and in all matters he was to “follow the established law of reporting to the Imperial Resident in Tibet.” This, said our Minister, was the first unequivocal declaration on the part of China that she regarded Tibet as within her sovereignty, though in a conversation between Prince Chang and Sir Ernest Satow the former had held that both land and people were subject to China.

In preparing his expression of thanks for the honours conferred upon him, the Dalai Lama sought to improve his position by proposing that he should be able to memorialize the Throne direct, instead of through the Resident, but the Board of Dependencies refused to allow him to do so.

The Dalai Lama left Peking on December 21 to proceed to Lhasa by way of Tung-kuan, Si-ngan, Lanchou, and Kumbun—that is, by the northern route, and not through Szechuan, as the Chinese Residents always travel. The day before his departure he sent two of his Councillors to Sir John Jordan to pay a visit of farewell on his behalf. In addition to some presents of incense and other articles for the Minister, they brought a “hata” (scarf), which they specially begged should be transmitted to His Majesty the King-Emperor, with a message of respectful greetings from His Holiness. The Councillors said that the Dalai Lama’s visit to Peking had been a useful educative influence to himself and his advisers, and had resulted, they hoped, in the resumption of the time-honoured relations with China. It had also enabled them to ascertain the views of His Majesty’s Government with regard to Tibet, and, after the assurances our Minister had given them, they now went back thoroughly convinced that so long as they faithfully carried out the terms of the recent Convention, they could look forward with confidence to the maintenance of friendly relations with His Majesty’s Indian Government. This they considered one of the most valuable results of their journey. The Dalai Lama had originally intended, they explained, to leave two or three of his Councillors to represent his interests here, but this proposal had for the time being been abandoned in deference to the views of the Chinese Government.

So the Pontiff disappears into space again, and for a year nothing is heard of him till a report comes from our agent in Tibet in October, 1909, that he had arrived at Nagchuka, a fortnight’s march from Lhasa. He had by this time evidently heard of the proceedings of Chao (Chao Erh-feng) in suppressing Lamaism and destroying the powers of the Lamas in Eastern Tibet, for he now sends telegrams to the British Agent at Gyantse, to be despatched from there to “Great Britain and all the Ministers of Europe.” These reached Gyantse on December 7, 1909. The first of them said that though the Chinese and the Tibetans were the same, yet nowadays the Chinese officer, named Tao (? Chao) and the Amban Len, who resides at Lhasa, were plotting together against the Tibetans, and had not sent true copies of Tibetan protests to the Emperor, but had altered them to suit their own evil purposes. They had brought many troops into Tibet, and wished to abolish the Tibetans’ religion; the Dalai Lama asked, therefore, that “all the other countries should intervene and kindly withdraw the Chinese troops.” The second telegram, to be sent after some days if no reply were received to the first, said that in Tibet, in the case of several Chinese officers, “big worms were eating and secretly injuring small worms.” The third telegram was to the Wai-wu-pu, and contained the same expression, and added: “We have acted frankly, and now they steal our heart.”

The Dalai Lama also at this time sent a messenger by Calcutta to Peking with a letter to the British Minister, dated November 7, from the Tacheng Temple, three days’ march outside Lhasa. This messenger reached Peking on February 7. The letter gave expression to the Lama’s desire that friendly relations with India might be maintained, and begged that the bearer’s message might be listened to by the Minister. This message, which was delivered on February 21, was to the effect that, having arrived in Lhasa territory, the Dalai Lama was concerned to find that active measures were being taken in the country by Chinese troops, and hoped that anything our Minister could do would be done. This messenger, though he had denied that he was the bearer of any other letters, as a matter of fact also delivered similar letters to the Japanese, French, and Russian Ministers, and the Russian Minister informed Mr. Max MÜller, our ChargÉ d’Affaires, that the letter to him was couched in more definite terms than that addressed to Sir John Jordan, and asked directly for Russian help against the aggression of the Chinese.

The point to note about these proceedings is that before the Dalai Lama had even reached Lhasa, he was seriously concerned at the anti-Lamaist proceedings of Chao in Eastern Tibet, and very suspicious of Chinese intentions in regard to his own rule in Tibet.

He appears to have actually reached Lhasa on Christmas Day, 1909, and shortly after sent a Lama to the Maharaj Kumar of Sikkim, whom he had met at Peking, with a message to thank the Government of India for the very generous treatment they extended to the Tibetan Government and people during the stay of the British Mission in Lhasa, and for withdrawing from the country after signing the Treaty. The Sikkim Maharaj Kumar understood from this message that the Dalai Lama wished to open friendly relations direct with the Government of India.

The situation in Lhasa on the Lama’s arrival was most critical. The Tibetans were alarmed and enraged at the excesses which had been committed by the Chinese troops in Eastern Tibet, especially in the destruction of a large monastery near Li’tang, in retaliation for the murder of a Chinese Amban; and the Tibetans had a story that when they destroyed the monastery the Chinese soldiers used the sacred Buddhist books for making soles to their boots.

An official was sent by the Dalai Lama and Council to our Trade Agent to represent the situation to him. He reached Gyantse on January 31 of this year, and said that the Chinese troops were still at Chiamdo, but as Tibetan troops were massed at only half a day’s march from that place there was not the least doubt that there would be bloodshed if the Chinese persisted in coming to Lhasa.

At Lhasa itself the Tibetans had continually requested the Chinese Resident to arrange that these Chinese troops should not be brought to Lhasa, but he refused to take any action. After the return of the Dalai Lama to Lhasa, the representatives of Nepal and Bhutan, together with some of the leading merchants and Mohammedan head-men in Lhasa, again approached the Chinese Resident as well as the Dalai Lama, with a request that he should settle the dispute as to whether or not these troops should be allowed in Lhasa. In the meanwhile the Tibetans had sent a considerable force to face the Chinese troops, which, as previously stated, had arrived under Chao-Erh-Feng at Chiamdo, a place tributary to, but not directly ruled by, China. The Tibetan force was meant to intimidate the Chinese, but, like the poor troops at Guru, had orders not to fight.

The account subsequently given by the Tibetan Minister of what next happened was that on February 9 the Assistant Resident, Wen, had an interview with the Dalai Lama in the Potala. The Nepalese representative and Tibetan traders were also present. A promise was then given by Wen not to bring more than 1,000 Chinese troops to be stationed at Gyantse, Phari, Chumbi, and Khamba Jong. Wen further promised that there should be no bringing to Lhasa of fresh troops, by which I suppose he meant that the garrison of Lhasa itself should not be increased. And he undertook to give them a promise to the same effect in writing.

Tibetans are proverbially hazy in their accounts of what was actually said or done on particular occasions, and the Chinese Government afterwards denied that Wen could possibly have given any such promise. But the Ministers did show Mr. Bell, the Political Officer in Sikkim, a letter which they asserted they had received from Wen. Wen wrote: “I had a personal interview on February 9, 1910, at the Potala, with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in regard to the orders sent from Szechuan about sending 1,000 Chinese troops to Lhasa....” He then agreed that the distribution of the troops to guard the frontier would be considered on their arrival at Lhasa; the Lamas would not be harmed or their monasteries destroyed, and there would be no diminution in the Dalai Lama’s spiritual power. Wen further stated in this letter that the Dalai Lama had agreed that the Chinese troops would have no resistance offered to them; that the Tibetan troops then assembled would be dismissed to their homes; that the Dalai Lama would thank the Emperor, through the Resident, for the great kindness shown him; and that great respect should, as usual, be paid by the Dalai Lama to the Chinese Resident.

This letter was written on February 10, and on the same day the Dalai Lama replied that orders for the withdrawal of the Tibetan troops and for the carriage of the Resident’s mails had been issued. The report to the Emperor of his arrival in Lhasa was also forwarded. But the Dalai Lama drew the Resident’s attention to the fact that while he had stated that there would be no diminution of his spiritual power, he had made no mention of his temporal power.

From this correspondence, taken with other actions of the Chinese, it was reasonably evident that the Chinese meant to take the temporal power from the Dalai Lama. But the point whether the Resident actually promised that more than 1,000 Chinese troops should not be brought to Lhasa is not clear. Anyhow, there is no mention of any more than 1,000, and no intimation that more than 1,000 were coming, or request that they might be allowed to. In India British troops are not sent into a Native State without at least an intimation, and when the Resident had made no mention of more than 1,000 being sent, the Tibetan Government had some justification for complaining when more than 1,000 arrived.

For this is what now happened. The Chinese, to the number of 2,000, advanced from Chiamdo, where, on January 20, a small fight took place between the Chinese and Tibetans; eight Chinese and fifteen Tibetans being killed, and eighteen of the latter being captured, all of whom were at once beheaded. The Tibetan troops then withdrew, and on February 12 forty Chinese mounted infantry and 200 infantry arrived suddenly in Lhasa, while 1,000 more were only two marches behind. A crowd of unarmed Tibetans went to look at the new arrivals and the Chinese fired into the midst, killing two Tibetan policemen, and wounding a high Tibetan official and an old woman.

This is the Tibetan version of what happened. The Chinese asserted that, although the Resident had gone to meet the Dalai Lama, yet the latter had refused to see the Resident again to discuss matters amicably; had prevented the Resident and his escort from obtaining the usual supplies, and by refusing transport had endeavoured to cut off communication with China. Bodies of Tibetans had impeded the march of the troops from the first, and finally the supplies collected for the Chinese troops had been burnt, although it had been carefully explained to the Dalai Lama that the troops were coming as police, and to protect trade-marts, and that no alteration whatever in the internal administration or interference with the Church was in contemplation. The right to station troops in Tibet had always rested with China, and the object of sending the recent reinforcements was merely to secure observance of Treaty rights, to protect the trade-routes and to maintain peace and order.

Such was the account given by the President of the Wai-wu-pu to our Minister at Peking. But the Dalai Lama, remembering what had happened just recently in Eastern Tibet under Chao Erh-feng, who was now himself at Chiamdo, was not so confident as to what these additional troops were meant for. When the new arrivals entered Lhasa on February 12, three of his chief Ministers were with him in the Potala, and during the meeting news came that the Chinese had despatched ten soldiers to the house of each Minister to arrest him. Upon hearing this, and that more than the 1,000 Chinese troops had entered Lhasa territory, the Dalai Lama and his Ministers decided to fly, and they left Lhasa that same night.

The Dalai himself gave these to Mr. Bell as his reasons for flying. He said that the promise of the Emperor of China that he would retain his former power and position in Tibet had been broken since his return to Lhasa. The Chinese police already in Lhasa and the forty mounted infantry had fired upon inoffensive Tibetans, and he fled because he feared he would be made a prisoner in the Potala, and that he would be deprived of all temporal power.

He left Lhasa with the Minister and Councillors, who were afraid to return to their houses, at midnight on February 12. Accompanying him were about 200 soldiers and various officials and attendants. The next day they reached the ferry over the Brahmaputra River at Chaksam, where he left the soldiers to check any Chinese who might come in pursuit, while he himself crossed the river and proceeded to Nagartse which he reached on the 15th—very rapid travelling.

The Chinese did pursue him, which is a point to note, as tending to increase the suspicion that they really had meant to make a prisoner of him. A fight took place at Chaksam, in which several Chinese—one report says sixty—were killed, but after which the Tibetans dispersed. And, according to the Dalai Lama, 400 Chinese troops were sent by the direct road from Lhasa to Phari, and another party of 300 along the road to Gyantse, while rewards were promised to anyone who might effect his capture or might capture or kill his Ministers. Some of the Chinese letters offering these rewards fell into his hands.

The Dalai Lama himself had meanwhile pressed rapidly on. On the 16th he crossed the Karo-la, the scene of Colonel Brander’s fight, and reached Ralung. Nor was reached on the 17th, Dochen on the 18th, and Phari on the 19th. Here lots were cast as to whether he should proceed vi Bhutan, Khamba Jong, or Gnatong. The lot fell on the last route, and, reinforced by about 100 men of the Chumbi Valley, he was escorted as far as Yatung on the 20th. With still further reinforcements and with fresh supplies he was escorted up to the Sikkim frontier on the 21st, and that same day reached Gnatong, on the British side.

With the British Trade Agent at Yatung he left a message saying that it was his intention to go to India to consult the British Government. He had appointed a Regent and Acting Minister at Lhasa, but he and the Ministers who accompanied him had their seals with them. He looked to the British for protection, and trusted that the relations between the British Government and Tibet would be that of a father to his children.

The Viceroy sent instructions to the authorities at Darjiling to show him every courtesy on his arrival there, about the 27th, but to treat his visit as private. The effect of the flight of the Lama and his Ministers, not only in Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, but also on Indian opinion, would, Lord Minto said, be profound, for in all these countries he was regarded with veneration and awe. He thought it of the first importance, therefore, to treat the Dalai Lama with high consideration.

At Darjiling, on March 3, Mr. Bell, the Political Officer in Sikkim, had an interview with him. The Lama rose from his seat to receive Mr. Bell, and shook hands with him. He asked him to telegraph and thank the Viceroy for the arrangements for the comfort of himself and his party. Then, when he had dismissed his attendants and given an account of his flight and his reasons for leaving Lhasa, he told Mr. Bell that when Ugyen Kazi, the Bhutan agent, had presented him with Lord Curzon’s letter, before the time of the Mission, he would not receive it, since he had agreed with the Chinese to conduct his foreign affairs through Chinese intermediaries only. In like manner, when I had written to him in the course of the Tibet Mission, the Chinese refused to let him send a reply. Now the Chinese had broken their promises, as already related, and he had come to India for the purpose of asking the help of the British against the Chinese. He stated that unless the British Government intervened, China would occupy Tibet and oppress it, would destroy the Buddhist religion there and the Tibetan Government, and would govern the country by Chinese officials. Eventually, he added, her power would be extended to India: there were already 2,000 Chinese troops in Lhasa and its neighbourhood, others were following, and it was not for Tibet alone that so large a number of troops were required.

This statement of the Dalai Lama’s was borne out by information received from Gyantse, which said that 2,000 Chinese troops from Chiamdo had arrived at Lhasa in February, and that the Tsarong Sha-pÉ (the General who had met Mr. White and me at Khamba Jong, and who afterwards, raised to the position of Councillor, was one of those who negotiated the Treaty) was the only high Tibetan official left in Lhasa, and had to obtain the Resident’s permission for all his acts. The Gyantse report added that the chief opponent of the Tibetans was the Resident Len, who, according to the common talk of Lhasa, desired to take the entire administration into his own hands, and was very suspicious of British influence in Tibet. The Tibetans believed that the first thing he would do if the Ministers returned would be to cut their heads off and force the Dalai Lama to give him the power. Chinese soldiers had been posted on each side of the Brahmaputra at Chaksam to prevent any Tibetan crossing without a pass signed by the Resident.

Later information received from the Ministers showed that whereas the normal Chinese garrison of Lhasa and surrounding country was only 500, there were now altogether 3,400 Chinese soldiers there—viz., 2,400 in Lhasa; 500 at Gyamda, ten days’ journey east of Lhasa; and 500 at Lharigo, fourteen days’ march north-east of Lhasa. The Ministers also stated that the intention of dismissing the Ministers who accompanied the Dalai Lama to India had been announced by Amban Len. The Dalai Lama’s palace near Lhasa, known as Norbaling, was stated to have been taken possession of by Chinese soldiers, who were endeavouring to construct barracks capable of holding 1,000 Chinese troops at Lhasa.

Besides this, the Minister reported that Chinese police were being posted throughout the country by the Amban, and where Tibetan police existed they were being dismissed. The Amban had removed thirty good rifles from the Tibetan armoury, had closed the Tibetan arsenal and Tibetan mint, and proposed the confiscation of all rifles throughout the country in the possession of Tibetans. The Regent had been forbidden by him to perform his religious duties, the Amban saying another Lama would be chosen for this purpose. The Amban had broken open the sealed doors of the Dalai Lama’s palace at Norbaling, near Lhasa, was taking steps to deprive the Ministers who accompanied Dalai Lama to Darjiling of their appointments, and had posted soldiers in most of their houses.

From Darjiling the Dalai Lama proceeded to Calcutta, where, on March 14, after an exchange of formal visits, he had a private interview with the Viceroy. He expressed his reliance on the British Government and his gratitude for their hospitality. The difficulties between Tibet and Britain in 1888 and 1903 had been caused by China. The promises of the Emperor and Dowager Empress had been disregarded by the Amban, who had clearly shown that he would leave the Tibetans no power. He appealed to us to secure the observance of the right which the Tibetans had of dealing direct with the British. But he further desired the withdrawal of Chinese influence, so that his position might be that of the fifth Dalai Lama who had conducted negotiations, as the ruler of a friendly State, with the Emperor. There should also be withdrawal of Chinese troops. The Treaties of 1890 and 1906, to which they were not parties, Could not be recognized by the Tibetans. He was cut off from communication with the Regent whom he had left at Lhasa, although he and his Ministers were the Government of Tibet, and had the seals of office. All travellers were stopped and searched by the Chinese, and, unless sent secretly, no official letters got through. He had received some private letters. He would not return to Lhasa unless this matter was settled satisfactorily. What his eventual destination would be he could not say; he wished to return to Darjiling for the present. After the violation of the promises which the Dowager Empress gave him, he would not trust the Peking Government’s written assurance. Intrigue on his part against the Chinese he denied. The Amban was altogether hostile, and a hostile policy had been adopted by the Chinese. He repeated his statement that the Chinese had designs on Sikkim, Bhutan, and Nepal. So far as Tibet was concerned, there was no need for the large force of 2,700 troops which, according to his information, the Chinese had in and round Lhasa. The Lama also gave his account of his relations with Dorjieff, who, he said, was a purely spiritual adviser, and of the treatment of the letter from Lord Curzon. He inquired, at the conclusion of the interview, how his appeal was answered. In reply Lord Minto said that at present he could give no reply at all, but that he was very glad to make his acquaintance, to extend hospitality, and to hear his views, which would be placed before His Majesty’s Government. The Dalai Lama again thanked Lord Minto warmly for his hospitality and took his leave.

On the return of the Dalai Lama and his Ministers to Darjiling further representations were made by the latter to Mr. Bell. They said that the only offence of themselves and the Tibetan people was the struggle to maintain the freedom of their country, and they asked^[58] that a British officer might be sent to Lhasa or Gyantse to inquire into Chinese conduct, and that “an alliance under which each party should help the other on the same terms as the arrangement which they said exists between the Government of India and Nepal might be concluded by the Government of India with Tibet.”

A few days later, on April 18, they requested^[59] that the aggression of the Chinese might be stopped while discussion between the British and Chinese Governments was in progress, and that permission to communicate with their deputies at Lhasa might be given to the Tibetan Government in Darjiling. Failing this, they requested the despatch to Lhasa of British officers with soldiers to inquire into and discuss the present condition of affairs with the Chinese.

Was there ever a more tragic reversal of an old position? Warren Hastings, Bogle, Turner, Lord Curzon, and we in 1904, all trying to induce the Tibetans to be ordinarily civil! And now the Grand Lama and his entire Government come to us, come to beg us to uphold their right of communicating direct with us, and to send British officers—and not merely officers, but soldiers—to Lhasa, and to form an alliance. In all history there can hardly be a case of a more dramatic turning of the tables. Yet, when all we had been striving after for a century and a half was now being pressed upon us, we informed the Dalai Lama we were precluded from interfering. When the Tibetans did not want us we fought our way to Lhasa to insist upon their having us; when they did want us, and had come all the way from Lhasa to get us, we turned them the most frigid of shoulders.

The reason for this attitude was said to be^[60] that the Anglo-Tibetan and Anglo-Chinese Convention specially precluded us from interfering in the internal administration of the country. But if the Tibetan Government themselves wished a change, there was no reason why the first objection should hold; and if the latter was the obstacle, it is inconceivable why we ourselves should have made it, and thus in yet one other way tied our own hands. It was because the Chinese had so grossly mismanaged Tibetan affairs that the Indian Government had to undertake two expeditions on the Tibetan frontier. And we must have taken some unfortunate step if, when the Chinese were again mismanaging Tibet, we were precluded by an engagement with them from taking what action we liked to keep this frontier quiet.

We were, however, not altogether inactive. On January 31, 1910, the Government of India, when they had first heard through the official sent by the Dalai Lama to our agent at Gyantse that the Chinese were advancing into Tibet, had suggested^[61] that a representation should be made at Peking pointing out that disorder on our frontier could not be viewed by us with indifference, resulting as it possibly might in the status quo being entirely changed, and in conditions being set up wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our agreements with Tibet and China, agreements by which the continuance of a Tibetan Government was recognized. The Chinese Government might also be told, they considered, that we should be compelled in self-defence to strengthen our escorts at Yatung and Gyantse if unsettlement of the country continued, though assurance might at the same time be given to both China and Russia that the maintenance of the status quo under the Treaties and Trade Regulations was all that we desired.

There was nine days’ delay—perhaps due to the General Election—in considering this telegram in the India Office, and during those fateful days events were advancing apace at Lhasa. But on February 9, the day when the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Associate Resident were consulting together in the Potala, Lord Morley informed^[62] Sir Edward Grey that he would be glad if he would see fit to address the Chinese Government in the sense suggested by the Indian Government.

Sir Edward Grey fully appreciated^[63] the serious complications which might arise upon the Indian frontier as the result of an attempt on the part of the Chinese to deprive the Tibetans of their local autonomy, but before deciding on the course to be adopted he thought it desirable to ascertain the views of Sir John Jordan, who was accordingly telegraphed to in this sense on February 11, the day before the Dalai Lama fled from Lhasa.

Sir John Jordan, one of the best Ministers we have had in Peking, had unfortunately to leave Peking at this time, and since the reply of the ChargÉ d’Affaires, Mr. Max MÜller, was received the situation had so altered that the terms in which the Chinese were to be addressed had to be reconsidered. It was true, said Lord Morley, in addressing the Foreign Office, that, in view both of our Treaty relations with China and Russia and of the history of our past policy in regard to Tibet, the position of Great Britain is somewhat delicate, and that it is difficult for us to make an effective protest. But he was strongly of opinion that it should be pointed out emphatically to the Chinese Government (1) that Great Britain, while disclaiming any desire to interfere in the internal administration of Tibet, cannot be indifferent to disturbances of the peace in a country which is both our neighbour and is on intimate terms with other neighbouring States upon our frontier, and especially with Nepal, whom we could not prevent from taking such steps to protect her interests as she might think necessary in the circumstances; (2) that, in view of our Treaty relations with both Tibet and China, His Majesty’s Government had the right to expect that the Chinese Government would at least have tendered friendly explanations before embarking on a policy which, in the absence of such explanations, could not but appear intended to subvert the political conditions set up by the Anglo-Tibetan Convention and confirmed by the Anglo-Chinese Convention; and (3) that His Majesty’s Government must claim that, whatever the intentions of the Chinese Government might be as regards the future of Tibet, an effective Tibetan Government should be maintained, with whom we could, when necessary, treat in the manner provided by those two Conventions.

Sir Edward Grey concurred in Lord Morley’s views, and directed Mr. Max MÜller on February 23 to make a representation to the Chinese Government in the above sense. In reply to this, Liang-tun-yen, the President of the Wai-wu-pu, informed Mr. Max MÜller on February 25 that the force despatched to Lhasa consisted of not more than 2,000 men, under a Brigadier, but not under Chao Erh Feng, who was apparently still at Chiamdo. He wished to assure the British Government that the Chinese intentions were merely to enable the country to be policed and more effective control than formerly to be exercised, particularly in regard to Tibet’s obligations to neighbouring States. The Chinese desired no modification of the status quo, and no alteration in any way of internal administration. It had not been their intention that the Dalai Lama should be deprived of his power, and repeated messages to that effect had been sent him. His title had already been taken from him in 1904, and subsequently restored to him. He would now be punished personally by deposition and by a new Dalai Lama being appointed; but unless unforeseen circumstances rendered such a course necessary, no further aggressive action in Tibet was contemplated.

On returning home from his interview Mr. Max MÜller found a note from the Chinese Government communicating the terms of an Imperial Edict issued that morning deposing the Dalai Lama and giving instructions for the election of a successor. This note said that “the Dalai Lama had flown from Tibetan territory in the night of February 12; he [the Resident at Lhasa] knew not whither, but that officers had been sent in all directions to follow him up, attend upon him, and protect him.”

The Imperial Decree said that the Dalai Lama had been the recipient of Imperial favour and abounding kindness, but that since he assumed control of the administration he had been proud, extravagant, lewd, and slothful beyond parallel, and vice and perversity such as his had never before been witnessed. Moreover, he had been violent and disorderly, had dared to disobey the Imperial commands, had oppressed the Tibetans, and precipitated hostilities. In July, 1904, he had fled during the disorders, and was denounced by the Imperial Resident in Tibet as of uncertain reputation, and a Decree was issued depriving him temporarily of his title. When he came to Peking he was received in audience, given an addition to his title, and presented with numerous gifts. Every indulgence was shown to him in order to manifest the Emperor’s compassion. The past was forgiven in the hope of a better future, and the Emperor’s intention was generous in the extreme. The present entry of Szechuan troops into Tibet was specially for the preservation of order and the protection of the trade-marts, and the Tibetans should not have been suspicious because of it; but the aforesaid Dalai, after his return to Tibet, spread reports and became rebellious, defamed the Resident, and stopped supplies to Chinese officers. Numerous efforts were made to bring him to reason, but he would not listen; and when Lien-yÜ telegraphed that, on the arrival of the Szechuan troops in Lhasa, the Dalai Lama, without reporting his intention, had fled during the night of February 12, and that his whereabouts were unknown, the Emperor commanded the Resident to take steps to bring him back and make satisfactory arrangements for him. The aforesaid Dalai Lama had been guilty of treachery over and over again, and had placed himself outside the pale of the Imperial bounty. To his superiors he had shown ingratitude, and he had failed to respond to the expectations of the people below him. He was not a fit head of the saints.

He was, therefore, to be deprived of the title of Dalai Lama as a punishment, and to be treated as an ordinary person, and the Resident in Tibet was to at once institute a search for a number of male children bearing miraculous signs, to inscribe their names on tablets, and, according to precedent, place them in the golden urn, from which one should be drawn as the true re-embodiment of the previous generations of Dalai Lamas.

In a written communication to the British Minister, dated February 27, the Chinese confirmed their verbal reply. They were sending troops “to tranquillize the country and protect the trade-marts.” The troops which were entering Tibet were “in no way different from a police force,” and were to protect the trade-marts and “see that the Tibetans conformed to the treaties.” “But the Dalai Lama does nothing but run away on one pretext or another,” continued the note “and must really be considered to have renounced his position voluntarily.” But “under no circumstances would the dismissal or retention of a Dalai Lama be used to alter the political situation in any way.”

In a further interview which Mr. Max MÜller had with the Chinese Grand Councillor, Natung, on March 5, the Chinese position was again stated. He showed, by sketching his career, how impossible it was to place any confidence in the Dalai Lama. Ever since the Lama assumed direction of affairs in 1895 he had been a constant source of trouble to China, and our expedition in 1904 was the result of his intrigues and wild disregard of Treaty obligations. On that occasion he had fled from Tibet without permission, but all along he had been treated with consideration, and his insubordination borne with, by the Chinese Government; the latter had, however, been compelled to depose him and appoint another, owing to his proceedings since his return to Lhasa territory and his flight from Lhasa without just cause. On Mr. Max MÜller asking for definite instances of insubordinate conduct, Natung said that although, on the Lama’s arrival, the Amban had gone to meet him, yet the former, during the fifty days he was in Lhasa, had refused to see the Amban again to discuss matters amicably; had prevented the Amban and his escort from obtaining the usual supplies, and by refusing transport according to regulations had endeavoured to cut communications with China. Bodies of Tibetans had impeded the march of the troops from the first, and finally the supplies collected for the Chinese troops were burnt, although it had been carefully explained to the Dalai Lama that the troops were coming as police and to protect trade-marts, and that no alteration whatever in the internal administration or interference with the Church was in contemplation. On Mr. Max MÜller telling Natung of the incidents reported to have occurred in Lhasa at the time of the flight of the Dalai Lama, he said that no such information had reached the Chinese Government; he would not assert that no incidents had accompanied the entry of the Chinese troops, but, seeing that the strictest orders to the contrary had been given to the troops, he could not credit statements as to the unprovoked attacks on Tibetans. It was not true, moreover, that there had been any diminution of position or power of the Dalai Lama, and he could not believe that a promise that only 1,000 troops would came to Lhasa had been made by the Amban; without the Chinese Government’s authorization, which had not been given, such a promise could not be made.

Natung emphatically stated that newspaper reports as to the proposal by the Viceroy and Chao Erh-feng for conversion of Tibet into a province of China were without a shadow of foundation. His Excellency said that the Chinese Government entertained no thoughts of such a course, which would be a contravention of the treaty stipulations between England and China. Mr. Max MÜller was reminded by Natung that blame was formerly imputed to the Chinese Government because they did not enforce observation of Treaty engagements on the part of the Tibetans, and that the signature of the Trade Regulations of 1908 by a Tibetan delegate had been insisted on by His Majesty’s Government, because they thought that Regulations would otherwise not be conformed to by Tibetans. He stated, as regards troops in Tibet, that none of Chao Erh-feng’s force had entered Lhasa territory, that force being still in Derge and Chiamdo. The 2,000 men sent to Lhasa were a separate body of troops from Szechuan, and, beyond the Amman’s normal escort and the guard at the post-stations, these were the only additional troops in the country. The right to station troops in Tibet had always rested with China, and the object of sending the recent reinforcements was merely to secure observance of Treaty obligations, to protect the trade-marts, and to maintain peace and order. The person of the Dalai Lama himself, he assured the Minister repeatedly, was alone affected by the steps which the Chinese Government had taken. Precedents for removing Lamas were numerous; in 1710, owing to misconduct, the sixth Dalai Lama had been removed. No action would be taken which would disturb the Lama Church or the existing administrative system in Tibet. It was absurd to suppose that the Chinese Government would interfere with Lamaism, as there were Lamaist functionaries at the Peking Court, and millions of Lamaists among the Mongol subjects of China. With regard to the charges that monasteries had been burnt, one only had been destroyed by Chao Erh-feng, more than a year previously, because a Chinese Amban had been ambushed and killed, together with thirty of his escort, by the Lamas.

On the receipt of the Chinese reply, Lord Morley telegraphed to the Viceroy for the views of the Government of India; but at the same time he impressed on them that they should bear in mind that it was essential that a strictly non-committal attitude on all points at issue between China and Tibet should be observed.

The Viceroy replied on March 12^[64] that it appeared that all power at Lhasa had been taken by the Chinese into their own hands. The only high official left could not act without consulting the Chinese Resident. Reports from Trade Agents stated that the Chinese did not allow the Tibetans to deal with them direct. Various reports as to Chinese aggressive and oppressive action were in the possession of Government, but their authentication was difficult. It appeared to be the case, however, that there was no longer any Tibetan authority in existence, and it was impossible to reconcile with established facts the statements of the Chinese that the power and position of the Dalai Lama had not diminished, and that no alterations in internal administration were contemplated. Copies of the correspondence that had passed between the Dalai Lama and the Assistant Minister at Lhasa had been given to Mr. Bell. This correspondence, in the genuineness of which there was every reason to believe, showed (1) that the intention was that the Dalai Lama’s temporal power should be taken from him; and (2) that the despatch of only 1,000 troops was contemplated. Lama Buddhists and Tibetans would not recognize that the Dalai Lama had been deposed spiritually, and the latter would, therefore, be a source of trouble to the Chinese. There was no reason why the Dalai Lama should have our support, but confidence would be restored on the frontier by his restoration, and it would be proof of a desire to maintain the status quo. The Suzerainty of China was denied by Tibetan Ministers in conversation with Mr. Bell, but if China wished to be friendly it might still be possible to bring about a modus vivendi.

The Viceroy suggested that in any case our own interests must be protected. There was unsettlement in our frontier States. Rumours of location of a garrison at Yatung and the number of troops in Tibet constituted, in the opinion of the military authorities, a menace to the peace of our border. The reform, not the abolition, of the Tibetan Government was contemplated in the edict of March 9, 1908. The Trade Regulations of 1908 had been violated in the following respects: Administration and policing of trade-marts had, inconsistently with Article III., been taken over by Chinese, and direct dealings between our Agents and Tibetans had been prevented. The Tibetan Government was recognized by the Convention of 1904, which was recognized by Article I. of the Convention of 1906. A large slice of Tibetan territory had been lopped off by the Chinese, who had forcibly occupied and dispossessed the Tibetans of Chiamdo, of Troya, and of Tsa Kalho—provinces of Eastern Tibet. It seemed necessary in any case, therefore, that the Chinese Government should be required to give definite assurances on the following points: (1) The limitation of the Chinese garrison in Tibet to a number adequate for maintenance of order internally. (2) The maintenance of a real Tibetan Government. (3) The policing of the trade-marts by Tibetans under Chinese officers, if necessary. (4) The appointment at Lhasa of an Amban less hostile to British interests. (5) The issue of instructions to Chinese local officers to co-operate with British Trade Agents and not to hinder our officers and the Tibetans from dealing direct with one another. It might be advisable that at this stage the Chinese Government should be informed that the British Government must reserve the right to retain and increase the escorts at Yatung and Gyantse, if necessary, in view of the change in the status quo, unfriendliness of local Chinese officers, and disturbed state of Tibet. Individual Chinese might get out of hand, though it was improbable that our agencies would be attacked by the Chinese.

Lord Morley, in forwarding these views of the Indian Government to the Foreign Office, observed that it appeared that the Chinese Government was deliberately making its suzerainty over Tibet effective, and that the result of its proceedings would be the substitution of a strong internal administration for the feeble rule of the Dalai Lama. It was necessary, therefore, to consider how this change would affect, in the first place, British-Indian relations, commercial and political, with Tibet; and, secondly, the relations of the three States of Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, lying outside the administrative border of British India, but under British control or protection, with the Government of India and with their neighbour in Tibet. As to the first of these questions, it seemed to be sufficient at this stage to take note of the assurance of the Chinese Government that it would fulfil all treaty obligations affecting Tibet, and to inform it that His Majesty’s Government would expect that pending negotiations and representations on the subjects of tariff, Trade Agents, monopolies, tea trade, and so forth, would not be prejudiced by delay or by any change of administration. The second question was, however, one of greater urgency and importance, because delay might create mistrust in the States concerned, and even encourage China to raise claims which would hereafter lead to trouble. It seemed to be advisable that a clear intimation should at once be made to China that the British Government could not allow any administrative changes in Tibet to affect or prejudice the integrity of Nepal or the rights of a State so closely allied to the Government of India. Sikkim had long been under British protection. By a recent Treaty the foreign affairs of Bhutan were under the control of the British Government. The communication, therefore, which it was proposed to make to the Chinese Government relative to Nepal might well cover the other two States on the borders of British India. While, then, it was suggested that the Chinese Government should be informed that the British Government expected the Treaty obligations of Tibet and China in respect to Tibet to be scrupulously maintained, and, moreover, were prepared to protect the integrity and rights of their allies, the States of Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan, the Secretary of State for India proposed to instruct the Viceroy to check any action on their part which was not authorized by the Government of India.

Should China fail in performing her Treaty obligations in Tibet after the receipt of the intimation, the breach of agreement could form the subject of precise protest and negotiation. But in the meantime it was undoubtedly desirable to press the Chinese Government to send strict orders to their local officials to co-operate with our own officers in a friendly manner, since without such friendly relations (of which there had recently been a marked absence), friction between the two Governments was certain to arise. It might also be well, thought Lord Morley, to impress upon the Chinese the inadvisability of locating troops upon or in the neighbourhood of the frontiers of India and the adjoining States in such numbers as would necessitate corresponding movements on the part of the Government of India and the rulers of the States concerned. The Tibetans, though ignorant, were peaceable people, and it was unlikely that a very large Chinese force would be necessary for such simple police arrangements as were contemplated by Article 12 of the Trade Regulations.

Adopting these proposals, Sir Edward Grey telegraphed to Mr. Max MÜller on April 8, to make a representation to the Chinese Government in their sense.

All we know further than this is that two battalions of infantry, four guns, and some sappers have been sent by us to the Sikkim frontier, to be ready, if necessary, to proceed into Tibet to protect the Trade Agents. And so the story ends much as when it began, except that while formerly it was the Tibetans who were supposed to be the most impenetrable and unsociable, it is now the Chinese who are presenting the real obstacles to any reasonable intercourse between India and Tibet.