To the Editor of the Dean Str,—On account of my having no daily access to the Shanghai newspapers, it was not until yesterday that I had the pleasure of reading your editorial, of the 8th instant, on the relative merits of the toro educational stems for promoting a knowledge of the Western sciences in China. I agree with your conclusion, that the
which this result is to be attained. The Chiese, language isthe proper median by facts, however, which you brought forward to support it, need an explanation. In truth, your premise, based, it may be, on certain data, has no bearing on the question. Admit your data, and your conclusion is still unproved; admit them, and certain other conclusions follow. I consider your premise, therefore, as involving independent topics, and as such I venture a few remarks.
1. You spoke of the failure of English-teaching, schools in producing. a single scholar in the sciences. In this you assumed that missionaries, in establishing these institutions, hed in view the general dissemination of Western. knowledge whereas, the truth is that they made such pretension, and undertook no such responsibility. If I am not mistaken, the object, for which they were commissioned, was to raise up Christian men and women, to lay a foundation for the Church, and to secure trained teachers, catechists, and ministers, This was the central idea, which all studies, sermons, addresses, and general training were intended to subserve. If the English or other languages were taught at all, they were merely as supplementary means of mental drill for the same end. Other Missionary Societies, again, advocate the anti-foreign system, and do so from a Christian point of view. The knowledge of tongues, they say, is a snare to young converts. Both systems endeavour to build up Christianity; neither pretends to be a teacher of sciences. Both seek to raise men after the stamp of the "fishermen of Galilee neither professes to passant scholars like Newton and Herschel.
The legitimate question in connection with these schools is their relative merits in promoting the cause of Christianity, and not as regards that of science.
The incompetency of educated youths to enlighten and benefit their countrymen is your second topic. As far as I can ascertain, but seven have ever been sent abroad under the auspices of missionaries. Of these, two graduated from college, and one from the medical university of Edinburgh the rest returned after a sojourn of one to three years, only long enough to obtain the language, two to iissonary service and two, after few years of similar labor, took to secular employment. With to the former, one is in the practice of his profession, one inthe government service, and the third inhioly orders. They occupy no mean place in Chinese society; their liberal education (which, I have observed is appreciated by their countrymen, as soon as made known), is good passport. One of them, who returned first, is generally spoken of as an American Sew-tsar. Their Ihinese education, it is trae, is not equal to that of the graduates, but it is not contemptible; and, with the aatistance of scholore (which aid. foreign sinologues also make use of), they are not unequal to the task of making a scientific translation, which requires less skill than an original production. The reason of their not having done so is because other duties claim their time, and that they are not in an independent position to carry on literary pursuits. When Ting Futai determined to establish the translating department in the Kiangu arsenal, the mandarin in charge, Feng, sought the service of one of them, but the pittance of a salary—offered on the plea that, being a Chinese, the Governor would not' sanction sum larger than what other native employes were receiving—obliged him to decline.
If, however, they have not benefitted their country' in the special department you lay stress upon, they have in other Yocations, and, so far, have not disappointed their patrons. But, granting the truth of your assertion that they have sunk to the. level of compradores and shopkeepers, it would only prove that educated Chinese are less able to make use of their advan-than educated Europeans; the main point in discussion is still untouched.
As I said before, your premises branch out into independent topics. Not only have they no logical connection with your conclusion, but your manner of stating them conveysa wrong impression. Whately will correct you on the first; excuse my comments on the second.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.