To the Editor of the Nortu-Cuixa Dany News.
Sin,—From your issue of the 21th of April we learn that Lord Salisbury, acting under the advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in turn was guided by the opinion of the Anglican Bishops in China, had instructed Sir Claude Macdonald to take no further steps with the view of obtaining for British Protestant missionaries the privileges conferred on the Roman Catholic clergy by the recent Imperial Edict re " Missionary Status."
Of all the surprising things which have happened in China, this is one of the strangest. The Chinese government of its own accord makes offer of certain privileges to missionaries, and they declined to receive them almost unanimously Although Lord Salisbury relied for his gui Ti Yet, a far as we have seen ance on the opinion expressed by the Ang-any notice of action taken in the matter by non-Anglicans, it has been entirely in the line of that opinion. To decline offered privileges is surprising; to do it unanimously is more so, but most surprising of all is the fact that it has been done without adequate reason alleged. He is a bold man who would suggest that such a body of opinion could be wrong; but we at least be allowed to state that we cannot understand it, and to ask for further light. Perhaps this may meet the eye of some one who knows more about it thaw we do, and who will kindly take the trouble to explain. It is in this hope that we address you.
'As faras we understand the matter, it stands thus:—Article I of the Treaty' of Nanking provides: " British subjects with their families and establishments shall be allowed to reside, for the purpose of carrying on their mercantile pursuits, without molestation or restraint, ut the cities of (the five ports), and Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, ete., will appoint Superintendents, or consular officers, to reside at each of the above-named cities to be the medium of communication between the Chinese authorities and the said merchants." No, 13 of the general regulations under the same Treaty provides that: "If an English merchant have occa~ sion to address the Chinese authorities he shall send in such an address through the consul, who will see that the language is becoming and, if otherwise, will direct it to be changed, or will refuse to convey the address." Article I of the Treaty of Tientsin provides that: "The treaty of peace and amity signed at Nanking is hereby renewed and confirmed."
far as we know these are the only regulations that have been made governing the intercourse between British subjects (the text says "merchants" as in those days the only concern was for them, but it was afterwards ordered that the term British merchant in a treaty was always to read British subject) and the Chinese authorities. They are sufficiently explicit, and they are still liable to be enforced, as we speedily learn when we have the bad luck to meet with a pernickety Consul. It follows, therefore, that whenever a missionary calls on a Chinese official, or even sends him a letter, he does a thing which he has no right todo. The Consul is the only authorised medium of communication, and whoever ignores him is guilty of an ir-
Turning to the Chinese side, we find that the door of direct communication between the missionary and the Chinese magistrate is equally barred, although in a different way. It is here that the question of status" comes in. Accdrding to the Chinese system, Chinese officials can only deal on a footing of equality with persons who are of equal standing to themselves. The missionary, being a men of no recognised
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.