Ir would be interesting to have a direct, translation from the original of the letter from the King of Burmah to the Emperor, which is published in the Peking Gazette of the 15th May. We know that China claims a kind of suzerainty over the neighboring States; but we have also seen that these States do not always recognise her claim; and it would be interesting to know how far the tone attributed to the King is justified by the Burmese text of his petition. We remember, some years ago, a similar memorial from the Governor of Fohkien, relating how the King of Siam had begged to be allowed to send tribute, and forwarding a petition fally equal in humility to that of the King of Burmah, begging for a renewal of the relations which had been interrupted. The memorial set forth how the sovereigns of Siam had from generation to generation been invested by the Celestial sovereigns, and paid tribute without intermission and wound up by saying that the present ruler, having lately ascended the throne, was anxious to pay tribute as customary and begged direetions how to proceed. The Fohkien authorities remarked upon the docament, that Siam was a small and insignificant spot in a remote corner of the Ocean, from which tribute has been forwarded through successive generations; and submitted it to the Throne. Nothing could have been more decorous and grandiloquent. But a few months after, came a letter from the Regent of Siam, addressed to the N.-C. Herald, disclaiming any idea of tribute, and declaring that presents wore sent only in order to maintain friendly relations and secure facilities for trade, was true that Siam wished to send an embassy; but she wished to do so by way of Tientsin as other nations do, provided it would be treated somewhat in the same way as those of Western nations. But the Chinese insisted that it should follow the old overland route through Canton; and so the matter had dropped until they should be willing to receive it in what Siam conceived to be a proper manner.
Now this document rather staggers our belief in the tributary anxiety of the "outer nations," and suggests a doubt whether the King of Burmah has used quite the servile language which the Chinese translation conveys. According to it, the King designates himself by a term less than even the Ministers of China adopt, in memorials to the Throne, and addresses the Emperor a strain of adulation and self-depreciation, which could hardly be excelled if the petition came from the meanest slave in his dominions, Oriental imagery and Oriental hyperbole tolerate much, but a doubt will arise whether even the Court of Man-delay would use language so absolutely grovelling as that of the present document. However, that Burmah is in some sense tributary to China seems beyond doubt. The Yunnan Governor's allegation in regard to the decennial prosentation of tribute, finds curious confirmation in the very reclamation from Siam, to which we referred at the outset. In reviewing the relations of China with her neighbours, the Regent remarks that Barmah made war against China in the last century, to get rid of the obligation; but in 1867, 8 and 9, the Chinese sent successive armies into the country, and the Burmese eventually "yielded and begged to pay tribute once in ten years as before." The Governor of Yunnan now tells us that, for eighteen years, the practice has been interrupted, owing to the Mahomedan rebellion; but in 1872, after the restoration of Imperial rule, a Burmese officer came to the provincial capital to ask for instructions as to the matter of tribute.
The Governor commanded him to act in accordance with the established custom; and now at last we have the result. There seems little doubt that this Embassy is the one which preceded Colonel Browne'sexpedition, and thereby strengthened the suspicion, in India, that the Court of Mandalay was privy to the attack, There seems to have been nothing so unusual in the event as to entail that inference, though it is
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.