Much discussion has taken place during the last two or three days on the matter of the memorandum aod on 17th May last at Tientsin by M. fournier and Li Hung-'This really forms key to the went unfortunate position, an extraordinary contradictions are pros fact, Li and Fournier are entirely erring that the erasures were made, the other that nothing of the sort was done, Surely if the document is of such diplomatic importance it should have boon deposited: in the Chancelleries, and M. Fournier would also have lad a copy. in passing atrango that such extremely divergent, opinions should exist on a plain matter of fact, The Journal des Débats asked M, Fournier for an explanation, and received the following cavalierly written lotter, which is, of course, argument Paris, 7th October, Sir,—Although you thought fit to bring into public notice in one of the recent issues of your paper, you doubtless do not expect that I should scatter broadoas your journal, any more than in another, the word of honourable man in the company of fai imifes -exeouted by Li Hung-chang's That word, which you appear to we bad the honour to ing, the only one left loos not satisfy, I hold the point their disposal, It hae always ioo of those who wanted it—
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.