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.