To the Editor of the Norru-Cursa Dany News, Sin,—The "very able" reply of the Chinese Times to my last letter in your columns, transferred as it is once again to your widely read paper, demands a brief Tejoinder, unless indeed in remorseful lence I'am to confess myself crushed which Iam not, I must first of all frankly make a confession. I had not by me when I wrote a copy of the Chinese Times, which unfortunately I never see; neither had I at hand the file of your paper, nor & copy of my own letter. I wrote therefore with insufficient caro; avd with merely the absolute knowledge and remem-prance before my mind of the idea which prompted my first letter. I ought without doubt to have selected a word of Jess dubious meaning, than the word in. formation," and this word, after the brief explanation given below 1 now formally, and with many apologies to a deservedly respected name, withdraw and substitute for it the words recorded opinion."
While making this apology, I' cannot conceive that any but vinoyary or irate critic can heve seriously misunderstood me. So far from doubting Laurence Oliphant's information" as to facts, T assumed them to be incontrovertible; and merely tried to explain them in a way different from his, by (to quote the Chinese Times) "reading in" thoughts to qualify the utterances of the Chinese commissioners, Had I been 80 bold or unjust as to doubt Oliphunt's veracity as a British otticial or as a private gentleman, I should have said plainly it may be permitted to a critic to doubt whether the Chinese Envoys ever said so and so." I did nothing of the kind, and thought nothing of the kind, "What then had I to criticise or doubt in this informa. tion?" Simply this. The statement of Laurence Oliphant which you, Sir, quoted contained not merely "information" as to matters of history where he himself was an eye and ear witness; but "information" also preferred to the world as to his own inference from these facts; to the effect that the utterances of the Chinese envoys declining to accept the responsibility of excluding opium from the tariff, dissipated at once and for ever the contention that opium was forced on the Chinese.
was this whole document, this whole information " which Ichallenged. Vera. city was not assailed, but inferred opinion, And this was challenged (too carelessly, I admit), as "information because you can "inform" the world of your opinions as well as your facts.
And T claim permission once more, in bidding farewell to the Chinese Times, to assert that the position which I have all too feebly and stumblingly defined, is unassailable; to the effect that the great protest of China against the Indian Opium Trade uttered by words of remonstrance, entreaty, threat, and reproach; uttered too often by semi-barbarous violence, yet uttered for 60 years, can never be allowed to have been silenced, and rendered void, by the words of the envoys when bewilt dered and in despair after a second disastrous war. China's present position, with an ever increasing growth of native opium, is quite indefensible. I write now only with reference to the event described and commented on by Oliphant.
T remain, Sir, Faithfully yours, Lth July.
A Misstoxary.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.