the Editor of the "NomTH-Cinka Dai News" matter of Sino-foreign relations, that it should stop to remonstrate against {the article in "The Times" of London jwhien was reproduced in your columns on November 23.
Let us forever bind upon our brows, {or the never-tailing direction of for-feign unking upon China, your indeed in establishing Sino-foreign reiuonships on te right basis 'Gseauat to abandon ineorles and 1 Imoitons which, however, suitable fan earlier' generation, -have Become As you have so-oft pleaded in the bast, one of these foreign theories, which dies hard in some quarters, is fan inveterate disbelief in the capacity, [sincerity and goodwill of the Chinese (Government in framing and can ying Jout its policies affecting the nations of the West—and Japan too, as the latter would admit if sue would bring re Jsonableness to bear in assessing the /question notwithstanding the proofs of {he capacities afforded by the National Government, "The Times" article, which you! Jeritictze, is a most depressing on2 and hardly serves to steel that necessary British back-bona out here; giving Jevidence, as it does, of the prevalence Jof that disbelief and old-mould form Jof thought. regarding China's affairs which your leader protests. Let us sincerely hope it is not a true reflee tion of the British Government's al itude towards British responsibilities in the Far East. For instance, the Jarticls only doubts that the people in North China want "autonomy" (autonomy—save the mark!). Again, says "The Time lconcile the Japanese pla Tapan's pledges; when knew that it is impossible to do sot Again, why is it that "all that] Britain can usefully do" is to "require equality of opportunity in North 'China" and to see that the North contributes its quota to meeting China' Horeign debt? Is it "useful" to require equal opportunity in North China in the same way as we "re-Jquired" it in Manchuria? Why have Jnot Britain and America at least ad: dressed State notes to Japan recording in definite terms their objection to jan "autonomous" North China—or is 'Sir John Simon not out of office'
And finally we have "The Times" of London suggesting that it was a blunder" for Sir Frederick Leith-Ross to attempt, independently, to restore originality and courage to British policy in the Far East!
Are Britons in the Far East going to let counsels of despair undermine {their former courageous outlook, and stay a determined voicing of our pro-}per local opinions for the guidance of the Foreign Office?
[Shangha!, Nov. 25.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.