No. 40.

Mr. Davis to Mr. Low.*

No. 57.]

Sir: The delay in answering your No. 56 has not been caused by a disposition to disapprove of your reply to the Foreign Office note on the subject of missions. On the contrary, the President regards it as wise and judicious.

Two versions of these regulations have found their way to the Department—the translation inclosed in your No. 56, and a translation apparently made from a French version, presented to the houses of Parliament in Great Britain, in June or July last, and printed in British Blue Book, entitled “China, No. 3, 1871.” These versions differ widely in form and expression, and, to some extent, in sense.

[Page 154]

The version presented to Parliament has been or will be made the subject of instructions by Her Majesty’s government to Mr. Wade. A copy of these proposed instructions was communicated to this Department by Her Majesty’s chargé at Washington in August last. A copy is herewith inclosed, and also a copy of the version to which they relate.

The most material variance between the two versions is in the designation of the missionaries against whom the Chinese Foreign Office complain. Your version limits the complaints to missionaries of the Roman Church. The British translation, following the French version, represents the complaints against “Christians.” For instance, the British version renders the beginning of the first article or rule as follows: “The Christians, when they found an orphanage, give no notice to the authorities and appear to act with mystery.” Your translation of the same sentence reads, “The establishment of asylums for training up children by the Romanists has hitherto not been reported to the authorities, and, as these institutions are carefully kept private,” &c., &c From the English version of the accompanying note from the Yamên, it is evident that the Chinese Foreign Office recognizes that there are in China Christian missionaries of different faiths; for they say that “the people in general, unaware of the difference which exists between Protestantism and Catholicism, confound these two religions under this latter denomination.” Your version is to the same effect.

Under these circumstances it may be well to re-examine the original, and ascertain which version is correct. Both, however, agree in the statement that the government of China is apprehensive of a popular outbreak which may endanger the peace of the country and its relations with the United States and the European powers, and that, therefore, it has determined to submit to the representatives of the foreign powers a plan for regulating the condition of Christians in China. Your prompt and able answer to these propositions leaves little to be said by the Department.

The rights of citizens of the United States in China are well defined by treaty. So long as they attend peaceably to their affairs they are to be placed on a common footing of amity and good-will with subjects of China, and are to receive and enjoy for themselves, and everything appertaining to them, protection and defense from all insults and injuries. They have the right to reside at any of the ports open to foreign commerce, to rent houses and places of business, or to build such upon sites which they have the right to hire. They have secured to them the right to build churches and cemeteries, and they may teach or worship in those churches without being harassed, persecuted, interfered with or molested. These are some of the rights which are expressly and in terms granted to the United States, for their citizens, by the treaty of 1858. If I rightly apprehend the spirit of the note of the Foreign Office, and of the regulations which accompany it, there is, to state it in the least objectionable form, an apprehension in the Yamên that it may be come necessary to curtail some of these rights, in consequence of the alleged conduct of French missionaries. This idea cannot be entertained for one moment by the United States.

The President will see with deep regret any attempt to place a foreign ecclesiastic, as such, on a different footing from other foreigners residing in China. It is a fundamental principle in the United States that all persons, of every sect, faith, or race, are equal before the law. They make no distinction in favor of any ecclesiastical organization. Prelates, priests, and ministers can claim equal protection here, and enjoy equal rank in the eye of the civil law. The United States ask no more in China [Page 155] than they confer at home. Should the peace of the empire be disturbed by efforts from any quarter to induce or compel the government to confer unusual civil rights on foreign ecclesiastics, you will make it plain that the United States have no sympathy with such a movement, and regard it as outside of the treaty rights which have been conferred upon the western nations. Should these demands, however, be complied with, this Government will then consider whether, under the thirtieth article of the treaty of 1858, a similar right will not at once inure to the benefit of all the public officers, merchants, and citizens of the United States.

The President would look with equal regret upon any attempt to withdraw the native Christians from the jurisdiction of the Emperor without his free consent, or to convert the churches founded by the missionaries into asylums. He can well conceive that the enjoyment of such a right might, as intimated by the Yamên, operate for the nominal and apparent conversion of desperadoes and criminals, who need a place of refuge to escape from punishment. On the other hand, he is mindful that the faith of the empire is pledged to the United States that not only citizens of the United States, but Chinese converts, who peaceably teach and practice the principles of Christianity, shall in no case be interfered with or molested. He feels confident, therefore, and expects that whatever may be the disposition of the turbulent and evil-disposed among the subjects of the Emperor, the native converts to Christianity will enjoy the full measure of protection guaranteed to them by the treaty of 1858. Except so far as the guarantee of that treaty extends, the President cannot permit the officials of the United States to participate in any attempt to disturb the natural relations between the Emperor and his Christian subjects. He particularly desires it to be understood that the profession of the Christian faith is not regarded by the officers of the United States as a protection against punishment for crime. Ecclesiastical asylums for criminals have never existed in this country, nor will they be planted elsewhere through its agency.

This Government has studiously and steadfastly observed its treaty engagements with China. The policy of the President and of his administration was elaborately set forth in the dispatch of August 31, 1869, to Mr. Bancroft, a copy of which was inclosed in Mr. Fish’s No. 2 to you. The President has seen no reason to change that policy. On the contrary, the events which have occurred since that, dispatch was written have the more convinced him of its justice. We stand upon our treaty rights; we ask no more, we expect no less. If other nations demand more, if they advance pretensions inconsistent with the dignity of China as an independent power, we are no parties to such acts. Our influence, so far as it may be legitimately and peacefully exerted, will be used to prevent such demands or pretensions, should there be serious reason to apprehend that they will be put forth. We feel that the government of the Emperor is actuated by friendly feelings towards the United States. We recognize the existence, to a limited extent, of the popular feeling and danger of outbreak which are set forth in the note of the Foreign Office. As far as we can, consistently with the duty which the government owes to those who have the right to claim its protection, we desire to aid the government of the Emperor in calming that feeling and in preventing such outbreak.

Should other nations seek our advice, or counsel with us on this subject, we shall not fail to urge these views. But in order to urge them with success, we must be in a position to say that the Chinese government is able and anxious to perform all its international duties, whether [Page 156] founded upon treaty or on well-settled principles of public law. We could speak with still greater force if we could give an assurance that it is disposed to enlarge its intercourse with the West, and to revise its treaties in that spirit. The guarantees for peace lie in this direction rather than in the revival of a restrictive policy.

With these general principles stated, it is not necessary to refer in detail to the note of the Foreign Office, or to the rules. Your reply to them has anticipated much that I should have otherwise said. I content myself with saying that as no complaint is made against the American missionaries, so there is no necesssity to make such rules for their observance.

A copy of these instructions will be sent to the various treaty powers. You will communicate the substance of them to Prince Kung.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

J. G. B. DAVIS, Acting Secretary,

Frederick F. Low, Esq.

Inclosures.

1. Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Fish, August 24, 1871, in which was inclosed a draught of a note from the British Foreign Office to Mr. Wade.

2. Extracts from British Blue Book, “China, No. 3, 1871.”

Mr. Pakenham to Mr. Fish

Sir: In compliance with instructions which I have received from Earl Granville, I have the honor to transmit a copy of a draught of a dispatch which Her Majesty’s government propose to address to Mr. Wade, Her Majesty’s minister in China, respecting the circular of the Chinese government on the subject of religious missions in that empire.

I have, &c.,

F. J. PAKENHAM.

[Untitled]

Sir: Her Majesty’s government have hitherto abstained from offering any observations upon the circular of the Chinese government on the subject of religious missions, of which a translation has been communicated to them by the French chargé d’affaires, in the expectation that they might have received some reports from you regarding it. As, however, they learn from your telegraphic dispatches that it will be some time before they are in possession of your views, they consider that they cannot allow this important paper to remain longer unnoticed, and I have accordingly now to state to you the impression which has been made by it upon Her Majesty’s government.

Her Majesty’s government must, in the first place, protest against the general assertions contained in the circular and accompanying regulations with regard to missionary enterprise in China, no distinction being made between the proceedings of missionaries over whom Her Majesty’s government have no control, and of the British missionaries for whose actions alone can Great Britain be held responsible. They must moreover remark that of the instances of alleged abuses cited, there is not one which [is] in any way connected with any British missionary establishment.

Her Majesty’s government might accordingly have contented themselves with replying to the Chinese government that the circular did not allege any complaint against British subjects, and that they could not enter a discussion of matters not directly affecting the relations between Great Britain and China.

Her Majesty’s government do not, however, desire to lay too much stress upon the point. They believe it to be the common interest and desire of all the governments having treaties with China, to co-operate with the government of the empire in maintaining the relations between China and their respective countries on the most friendly [Page 157] footing, and Her Majesty’s government will always be ready to consider any representations which the government of China may have to offer with that object.

On the particular question to which the circular relates, the policy and practice of the government of Great Britain have been unmistakable. They have uniformly declared, and now repeat, that they do not claim to afford any species of protection to Chinese Christians which may be construed as withdrawing them from their native allegiance, nor do they desire to secure to British missionaries any privileges or immunities beyond those granted by treaty to other British subjects. The bishop of Victoria was requested to intimate this to the Protestant missionary societies, in the letter addressed to him by Mr. Hammond, by the Earl of Clarendon’s direction, on November 13, 1869, and to point out that they would “do well to warn converts that, although the Chinese government may be bound by treaty not to persecute, on account of their conversion, Chinese subjects who may embrace Christianity, there is no provision in the treaty by which a claim can be made, on behalf of converts, for exemption from the obligations of their natural allegiance, and from the jurisdiction of the local authorities. Under the creed of their adoption, as under that of their birth, Chinese converts to Christianity still owe obedience to the law of China, and if they assume to set themselves above those laws in reliance upon foreign protection, they must take the consequences of their own indiscretion, for no British authority, at all events, can interfere to save them.”

On the other hand, Her Majesty’s government cannot forget that the free exercise of the Christian religion in China is stipulated for by the eighth article of the treaty of June 26, 1858, which states that “the Christian religion, as professed by Protestants or Roman Catholics, inculcates the practice of virtue, and teaches man to do as he would be done by. Persons teaching or professing it, therefore, alike shall be entitled to the protection of the Chinese authorities; nor shall any such, peaceably pursuing their calling and not offending the laws, be persecuted or interfered with.”

Her Majesty’s government, therefore, although they have given it to be most distinctly understood that conversion to Christianity gives no title to British protection against the operations of the laws of the land, could not be indifferent to the persecution of Christians for professing the Christian faith.

The impracticable nature of the regulations proposed by the Chinese government has been so convincingly shown in the note from Mr. Low, the representative of the United States to the Yamên, on the 20th of March last, that it is unnecessary for Her Majesty’s government to do more than refer to some of the principal objections to their acceptance.

The first regulation does not apply to the Bristish missionary societies, as they do not support any orphanages in China. Her Majesty’s government could not obviously accede to regulations which they had no power to enforce. If the missionaries of other countries have conducted such institutions in a manner to give just cause of suspicion to the people of China, Her Majesty’s government feel no doubt that, on a proper representation being made of the facts, the cause of complaint will be removed, but they cannot admit that such an atrocious crime as the massacre at Tien-tsin can be excused by ascribing it to the prejudices of the ignorant.

The second regulation requires that woman ought no longer to enter churches, nor should Sisters of Charity live in China to teach religion. The objection to woman frequenting the Christian churches has, Her Majesty’s government understand, been met at Fatshau and elsewhere by a screen having been erected to divide the sexes. To prevent woman altogether from attending divine worship would be in violation of the freedom of religion provided in the treaty, and would be contrary to the fundamental principles of Christianity. As the Chinese government are most probably aware, there are no Sisters of Charity attached to the British missionary societies; but Her Majesty’s government could not countenance any regulation which would cast a slur upon a sisterhood whose blameless lives and noble acts of devotion in the cause of humanity are known throughout the world.

The third and fourth articles, as respects Chinese Christians, have already been dealt with in the preceding part of this dispatch, but Her Majesty’s government cannot allow the claim that the missionaries residing in China must conform to the laws and customs of China to pass unchallenged. It is the duty of a missionary, as of every other British subject, to avoid giving offense, as far as possible, to the Chinese authorities and people, but he does not forfeit the rights to which he is entitled under the treaty as a British subject because of his missionary character.

The fifth article seems to be directed against French missionaries.

The ninth article of the British treaty contains provisions to prevent any abuses of passports borne by British subjects, and no passports are granted by British diplomatic or consular authorities to persons not of British nationality.

In this regulation, as in the third, fourth, and fifth, mention is made of occurrences in Sye-chuen. Her Majesty’s government have urged upon the Chinese government the expediency of their opening this province to foreign trade, and establishing a port there at which foreign consuls should reside. If the statements which have been made to [Page 158] the government of Peking with regard to the irregular proceedings of foreign missionaries and their converts are well founded, the Chinese Government would do well to consider whether the presence of foreign consular authorities is not required to control the improper or ill-directed exercise of the treaty privileges conferred on their countrymen.

Her Majesty’s government believe that there are no British Protestant missionary establishments in Sye-chuen, but it is impossible to prevent enterprising persons penetrating through a country. Sooner or later they will find their way, and the true interest of China is to facilitate rather than to restrict the flow of foreign enterprise; and to direct it in the manner most advantageous to that mutually beneficial commercial intercourse on which the prosperity and happiness of nations so largely depend.

Besides showing, as Mr. Low has pointed out, a complete misconception of the nature of the Christian religion, the sixth regulation is open to the objection that by constituting the Christians in China a class separated from the rest of the population, it would lead to the very evil of which it is the desire of the Chinese government to get rid, as the Christians would inevitably regard that separation as conferring on them privileges for the maintenance of which they must trust to the protection of the powers in whose treaties with China the freedom of the Christian religion is provided for.

The seventh regulation calls for no special observation.

The eighth regulation does not apply to British missionaries who have no ecclesiastical property in China to reclaim, and seems to refer to misunderstandings with regard to the operation of the sixth article of the treaty with France of October 25, 1860.

Her Majesty’s government trust that the Chinese government will not suppose that in withholding their assent to these regulations they are actuated by any other motive than the wish to avoid embarrassing a question, already of sufficient difficulty, by cumbrous and impracticable regulations.

The remedy for the alleged assumption of missionaries of a protective jurisdiction over native Christians, which constitute the gist of the accusations brought forward in the circular and regulations, appears to Her Majesty’s government to be sufficiently afforded by the treaties.

If British missionaries behave improperly they should “be handed over to the nearest consul for punishment,” like other British subjects, as provided in the ninth article of the treaty of Tien-tsin. If the local authorities consider that Her Majesty’s consuls do not in any instance afford redress for their complaints they can appeal through the government at Peking to Her Majesty’s minister in the ordinary course of international usage. Both Her Majesty’s minister and consuls have extensive powers for maintaining the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty’s subjects in China, and if those powers should be proved to be inadequate, Her Majesty’s government would readily increase them, but until it can be proved that Her Majesty’s minister and consuls are unable to control Her Majesty’s subjects in China by the exercise of the powers confided to them, Her Majesty’s government must decline to supplement the existing, treaties by regulations which, although only intended to deal with a particular class of British subjects, would undoubtedly subject the whole British community in China to a constant interference in their intercourse with the native population of a most vexatious description.

Circular of the Chinese government, on the subject of missionaries, communicated by the French chargé d’affaires.

Note from the Yamên on the subject of Missions.

[Extracted from British Blue Book, “China, No. 3, 1871,” as translated into French and from French into English.]

[Translation.]

The object which the powers and China had before them originally in signing treaties was to establish a permanent situation which would insure them reciprocal advantages and remove abuses. However, the experience of the last few years has demonstrated that not only do these treaties not attain this desired end of permanency, but also that, up to the present time, they are difficult to carry into execution. Trade has in no degree occasioned differences between China and the powers. The same cannot be said of the missions, which engender ever-increasing abuses. Although in the first instance it may have been declared that the primary object of the missions was to exhort men to virtue, Catholicism, in causing vexation to the people, has produced a contrary effect in China. [This regrettable result] is solely attributable to the inefficacy of the plan of action [followed in this matter.] It is, therefore, urgent that steps should be taken to remedy this evil and to search for a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, In fact, [Page 159] this question is one bearing upon those which influence the leading interests of the peace of nations, as well as those of their trade, which are equally considerable. Wherever the Catholic missionaries have appeared they have drawn upon themselves the animadversion of the people, and your excellency is not ignorant that cases which have arisen during the course of several years embraced points of disagreement of every kind.

The first Catholic missionaries who established themselves in China were called “literates (lettrés) of the West.” The greater part of the conversions took place at that time among respectable people. On the other hand, since the conclusion of the treaties took place, (1860,) the majority of the converts are persons without virtue; so that that religion, whose object is to exhort men to virtue, no longer enjoys any consideration. From that moment consciences have become a prey to uneasiness. The Christians have none the less continued, under the shadow of missionary influence, to mislead and oppress the people; thence arose renewed uneasiness, then quarrels between Christians and non-Christians, and, at last, disturbances. The authorities proceed to investigate the affair; the missionaries make common cause with the Christians, and support them in their insubordination against the same authorities. Thereupon the feeling of disquiet which pervades the people assumes greater proportions. Yet more; veteran rebels, beyond the pale of the law, amateurs in intrigue, seek a refuge in the church, and lean upon her influence in order to commit disorders. At this moment the animosity of the people, already deep, degenerates gradually into a hate which, at length, reaches its paroxysm. The people in general, unaware of the difference which exists between Protestantism and Catholicism, confound these two religions under this latter denomination. They do not grasp the distinction which should be made between the different nations of which Europe is composed, and give to Europeans the generic name of “men from without;” so that, when troubles break out, foreigners residing in China are all exposed to the same dangers. Even in the provinces where conflicts have not yet taken place, uneasiness and suspicion will certainly appear among the people. Is not such a state of things of a nature to occasion a lively feeling of irritation, and, as a result, grave disorders? The differences which exist between the religions and the nationalities are truths which still are beyond the comprehension of the masses, in spite of the constant efforts which have been exerted in order to make them appreciate their nature. The prince and the members of the Yamên, during the ten years in which they have been at the head of affairs, have been a prey to incessant anxiety. These precautions have been justified by the events at Tien-tsin. the suddenness of which was overwhelming. The proceedings against the functionaries [compromised] have been begun, the murderers have suffered capital punishment, an indemnity has been paid, and relief given; but, although the affair may to-day be almost settled, the prince and the members of the Yamên cannot throw off the uneasiness which they feel. In fact, if this policy is the only one on which one can rely [to settle] the differences between Christians and non-Christians, it will become more precarious in proportion to the necessity there will be to recur to it oftener, and the disorders like those of Tien-tsin will be repeated more terribly each time. If the question is looked at under its present aspect, the question is, how is it possible to be on good terms and to live on either side in peace? It is not only to the hatred engendered by the suppressed animosities of the people, but decidedly also to the provocations of the Christians, that the conflicts on the missionary question which arise in these provinces must be attributed. If, on one side, these conflicts may have been brought about by the relative incapacity of the local administration, they can certainly also be attributed to the conduct of the high Chinese and European functionaries charged with the direction of affairs, [affecting the two countries,] who, knowing the want of conciliation in the attitude of the missionaries and Christians, show no good will in seeking for the means of remedying the evil.

With regard to the Europeans, they only aim at getting rid of the difficulties of the moment, without troubling themselves whether by so doing consciences are disturbed; to employ coercion is all that is thought of. On the other hand, the local authorities have only one object, that of bringing the matter to a close. Care for the future goes for nothing in this short-sighted policy. But if we seek, in concert with the Europeans, to secure by efficacious means a really lasting understanding, we do not find among these latter the desire to found the discussion on equitable bases. When this discussion arises, they place before us unacceptable means which they wish to impose on us by force, in order to be able to put a stop to the matter. That is, in truth, not the good and true way to take care of the interests of the two countries. Anxious about the whole matter, and sincerely desirous that concord and peace should reign forever between China and Europe, the prince and the members of the Yamên are bound to seek the best means to secure this result. Their belief is, that, there are ecclesiastics everywhere in Europe, and that their presence abroad is there without danger to good harmony. The maintenance of this happy state of things is, doubtless, due to the employment of certain means, and to this fact, that ecclesiastics and Christians abstain from provoking conflicts. The prince and the members of the Yamên have [Page 160] heard that these same ecclesiastics, to whatever nationality they might belong, respected the law and customs of the country where they dwelt; that they were not allowed to constitute in them a kind of exceptional independence for themselves; and that the faults of every kind, such as contraventions of the law, insubordination towards the authority of functionaries, abuses and usurpations of powers, acts prejudicial to the reputation of people, and oppressive towards the people which provoke its suspicions and its resentment, are there severely repressed. If the missionaries, before constructing the religious establishments in China, and preaching their doctrine there, avoided making themselves odious to the principal men and people, the suspicions would disappear to give place to a mutual confidence, concord would be permanent; one would not see churches destroyed and religion attacked. If these same missionaries, in pursuit of their work, could inspire in the masses the conviction that their acts are not opposed to their teaching; if, remaining deaf to the instigations of the Christians, they avoided, by denying themselves, all interference in the local administration, giving the support of their influence to arbitrary and oppressive acts which engender hatred among the notables and the people, they might live in perfect harmony with the people, and the functionaries would be in a position to protect them. Far different is the conduct of the persons who now come to China to propagate therein the Christian religion. From the information which the prince and the Yamên have gathered, (respecting the duties imposed upon them by their priesthood,) these persons found as it were among us an undetermined number of states within the state. How, under these conditions, can we hope that a durable understanding should be established, and to prevent the governors and the governed uniting against them in common hostility?

The prince and the members of the Yamên are impressed with the desire to ward off from henceforth eventualities so menacing. In fact, they fear in all sincerity lest, after the arrangement of the Tien-tsin affair, the animosity of the ignorant Christians of the empire should take a more decided tone of insolent bluster, that the bitterness of the popular resentment should increase, and that so much accumulated bad feeling, causing a sudden explosion, should bring about a catastrophe. It would then be no longer possible for the local authorities, nor for the high provincial functionaries, nor even for the Tsung-li Yamên, to assert their authority. In the event of a general rising in China, the Emperor will be able to appoint high dignitaries to order them to assemble everywhere imposing forces; but the greatest rigor does not reach the masses, and when their anger manifests itself, there are persons who refuse to yield their heads to the executioner. Then, when the evil becomes irremediable, and when the wish we all have to preserve so great interests will no longer be effectual, the men who direct the international affairs of China and of Europe will not be suffered to decline the responsibility which falls on them. In short, in the direction of affairs, the important point in China as in Europe is to satisfy opinion. If, failing in this duty, oppression and violence are employed, a general rising will at last take place. There are moments when the supreme authority is disregarded. If the high functionaries of China and the Europeans, on whom rests the responsibility of the affairs which now form the object of our anxiety, remaining unmoved spectators of a situation which threatens the greatest danger to the Chinese people, as well as to strangers, traders, and individuals, make no effort to find a solution which may effectually remedy the evil, it will follow that it will be out of their power to deal in a satisfactory manner with the matters which interest the public. Consequently, with the view of protecting the great interests of general peace, and of remedying the abuses above pointed out, the prince and the members of the Yamên have the honor to submit, for your excellency’s examination, a plan of regulation in eight articles, which has also been communicated to the representatives of other powers.

Draught of regulations.

[From British Blue Book “China, No. 3, 1871.”]
[Translation.]

Article 1. The Christians, when they found an orphanage, give no notice to the authorities, and appear to act with mystery; hence the suspicions and hatred of the people. In ceasing to receive children, the evil rumors which are now in circulation would at the same time disappear. If, however, there is a wish to continue this work, only the children of necessitous Christians must be received, and then the authorities ought to be informed, who would note the day on which the child entered, the name of its parents, and the day on which it left. It would also be necessary that power should be given to strangers to adopt these children, and then a good result would be arrived at. Lastly, when it is a question of non-Christian children, the high officials ought to give orders to the local authorities, who should select proper agents who could take all the measures which appeared suitable to them.

[Page 161]

In China the laws which regulate orphanages are, that on the entrance and on the departure of the children note is made of the person who leaves them, or of the person who adopts them, of the declaration made to the authorities, and of the permission given to the parents to visit their children. When they have become bigger, they may be adopted by some one having no children, or taken back by the parents themselves, and then, no matter in what religion they have been brought up, they return to the religion of their fathers. The child ought in everything also to be treated well. In exercising this work of charity, it becomes a most worthy work.

We have heard it said that in every country matters are conducted in this respect very nearly as in China. How does it happen that once arrived in our country foreigners no longer follow these customs? They take no note of the family to which the child belongs, and they do not give notice to the authorities. Once the child has entered the house other persons are not allowed to adopt it, nor are the parents permitted to take it back again, nor even to visit it. All this nourishes suspicions and excites the hatred of the people, and by degrees a case like that of Tien-tsin is arrived at. Although we have denied in a report all those rumors of the tearing out of eyes and hearts, the people, however, still preserve doubts on the subject, and even if we succeed in closing their lips we cannot drive away these doubts from their minds. It is this kind of uneasiness which gives rise to terrible events. It would be a good thing to abolish the foreign orphanages, and to transport them to Europe, where they could practice their charity at their ease; it would then belong to the Chinese to come to the aid of these children. Besides, in every province we have numerous orphanages, and yet the foreigners wish to lend us at any price an assistance of which we have not the slightest need. It is certainly with good intentions they thus act; but it is not the less true that their conduct produces suspicion and excites anger. It would be far preferable if each one exercised his charity in his own country, and then no lamentable event could arise.

Article 2. Women ought no longer to enter the churches, nor should Sisters of Charity live in China to teach religion. This measure will only render the Christians more respectable, and will result in silencing evil rumors.

In China a good reputation and modesty are most important matters; men and women are not even allowed to shake hands nor to live together; there ought to be a kind of line of separation which cannot be overstepped. After the treaty full liberty was given to the Christians, and then men and women went together to church: hence rumors among the public. There are some places even where men and women are together not only at church, but also in the interior of the house. The public, looking at this in a light manner, harbors suspicions, and thinks that things contrary to propriety take place.

Article 3. The missionaries residing in China must conform to the laws and customs of China. They are not permitted to place themselves in a kind of exceptional independence, to show themselves recalcitrant to the authority of the government and of the officials, to attribute to themselves powers which do not belong to them, to injure the reputation of men, to oppress the people, to asperse the doctrine of Confucius, by which they give ground for the suspicions, the resentments, and the indignation of the masses. The missionaries must submit themselves, like everybody, to the authority of the local officials; and the Christian Chinese must, in every case, be treated according to the common law; with the exception of the expenses of theatrical solemnities, and of the worship of local protecting divinities from which they are dispensed from contributing to, the Christians cannot escape the requisitions and forced labor, and are constrained to accept, like everybody else, the charges imposed by the local administration. With stronger reason they cannot refuse to pay, in their integrity, the land taxes and the rents; nor can the missionaries advise them and support them in infringing the common law. Cases for litigation between Christians and non-Christians are under the equitable jurisdiction of the authorities, and cannot be left to the patronage of the missionaries. The latter cannot keep away from the courts Christians, prosecutors or defendants, which, in a trial, leads to delays and prejudices the parties interested. In the case in which missionaries allow themselves to be mixed up in affairs beyond their province, the local authorities ought to send their verbal or written communications to the high provincial functionaries, who will refer them in their turn to the Tsung-li Yamên, in order that a decision may be eventually taken as to the repatriation of these same missionaries. In the case where Christians, in suits respecting matrimonial alliances or property in land, plume themselves upon their position of Christians to invoke the intervention of the missionaries, they will be severely punished by the authorities,

China honors the religion of Confucius; that of Boudha and of Tao, as well as the doctrine of Lamas, is also professed there. Therefore, it is contrary to usage that the latter, although they may not be Chinese, should ignore the decisions of the Chinese authorities by approving or blaming them. We hear it said that the missionaries in foreign countries are subject to the legislation of the country in which they live, and that they are forbidden to make themselves independent, to contravene the law, to [Page 162] usurp authority, to attack the character of people or to prejudice them, or to arouse the suspicion and the resentment of the people. Similarly the missionaries who teach their religion in China ought to submit themselves to the authority of the magistrates of this country; nevertheless they are vauntingly independent, and do not recognize the authority of the officials. Do they not thus place themselves without the pale of the law? The Christians in China remain Chinese subjects, and are only the more constrained to remain faithful to their duties. In no case can a difference be established between them and the rest of the nation. The Christians in the towns and in the country ought to live in good harmony with their fellow-countrymen. Yet, in matters affecting the public when popular subscriptions are opened or forced labor required, they put forward their position as Christians to escape these burdens. They themselves create an exception, [in their favor.] How avoid that the rest of the nation accept this exception, [against them?] Yet more, they refuse the taxes and forced labor, they intimidate the officials, they oppress those who do not belong to their religion. The foreign missionaries do not fully understand the situation; not only do they give an asylum to Christians who are guilty of crimes, and refuse to deliver them up to justice, but they also consent to protect unjustly those who have only become converts because they have committed some crime. In the provinces the missionaries make themselves the advocates before the local authorities of the Christians who have suits. Witness that Christian woman of Sze-chuen who exacted from her tenants payments of a nature which were not due to her, and ultimately committed a murder. A French bishop took upon himself to address a dispatch to the authorities in order to plead for this woman, and procured her acquittal. This deed aroused animosities among the people of Sze-chuen, which have lasted to this day. In the Kwei-chow, Christians who go to law style themselves Christians “in the charge sheet,” (“acte d’accusation,”) with the sole view of gaining their cause. This is a well-known abuse. It happens also that two families being united by matrimonial ties, one is converted to Christianity, then compels the other, who is not converted, to break off the alliance. Among people of the same blood, one has seen fathers and elder brothers, after having been converted, lay an accusation for non-fulfillment of family duties against their children and younger brothers, for the sole reason that these latter had refused to be converted. These acts are encouraged by the missionaries. Are not such practices of a nature to excite to the highest degree the popular indignation?

Article 4. Chinese and foreigners living together ought to be governed by the same laws. For example, if a man kills another he ought to be punished, if a Chinaman, according to the Chinese law; if he is a foreigner, according to the law of his country. In thus acting, order will reign; it matters little the manner in which the Chinese or the foreigners treat the case, a punishment is all that is necessary. But that punishment once inflicted, they must not come and claim indemnities, and above all they must not seek the soi-disant abettor of the crime to exact from him a certain sum. It belongs to the local authorities to adjudicate on the differences which may arise between the Christians and the people. If it is a Pagan who has committed wrongs against a Christian, he ought to be punished more or less severely, according to the gravity of the fault; similarly if it is a question of a Christian accused by a Pagan. The official ought to adjudicate with the most perfect justice and the greatest impartiality.

If a Christian conducts himself altogether contrary to the laws, the local authority takes evidence; and if some one accuses this Christian, the latter is seized and judged. But the missionaries must not then come forward to defend him and to exculpate him. If the case arises of a missionary preventing a Christian giving himself up to the commands of the authority, the Christian, alone ought not to be punished, but also the missionary, or at least he ought to be sent back to his own country.

In the sixth year of the reign of Tung Chih, a missionary, M. Mabileau, was killed in the Sze-chuen. The murderer, named Jan Lao-won, was arrested, and condemned to death. But besides that, M. Mihières accused a man who formed part of the class of literates (“lettrés”) of having been the instigator of that murder, in order to exact from him an indemnity of 80,000 taels.

The individuals who commit disorders ordinarily belong to the lowest class of the people. When they are guilty of some crime, they are seized and punished; but accusations ought not to be brought against the literates (“lettrés”) to exact from them large indemnities. Such conduct excites hatred.

In the eighth year of the reign of Tung-Chih, a missionary, M. Rigaud, was killed in the Sze-chuen; the cause of the murder was an alliance between two families, which fell through. Tchung Tiang-tume and Ly Tchoun-tang judged this case. They caused the murderer of M. Rigaud to be arrested, a man named Ho-tsai, and the murderer of a Christian named Lion-fou, both belonging to the lowest class. One was condemned to have his head cut off, the other to be hanged. The Christians further killed some of the people; every year there were conflicts between creditors and debtors, rapes, and fires.

The instigators of all this were Wang Shue-ting, Tchang Tien-shin, and others. It [Page 163] was desired to seize and punish them, but they did not surrender themselves to the commands of the authority. Further, the Christians again, under the leadership of a priest named Tan Fou-tchuen, killed Tchao Yung-lin, and 200 other persons. The surrender of this missionary was demanded; but the Abbé Mihières said that he had left for Europe, and that there was no means of arranging this ease. Hence great anger among the inhabitants of Sze-chuen.

Article 5. The passports given to the French missionaries who penetrate into the interior ought clearly to bear mention of the province and of the prefecture where they intend to repair. The names and titles of the bearer, and these conditions, that he will not be able clandestinely to betake himself to another province, and that the passport is personal, will be equally comprised in this document. The missionary ought not to pass through the custom-house and toll-bar contraband articles of merchandise which are liable to duty. On his arrival at a destination other than that designated in the passport, or if this document has been handed over to a Christian Chinaman with the object of making him pass himself off as a missionary, the said passport shall be canceled. On the other hand, if it be ascertained that the bearer has gained possession of it by pecuniary payment, or that he has committed some other serious breach of the law, the individual who shall have thus falsely assumed the position of a missionary shall be punished, and the real missionary shall be sent back to his own country. In order that the control may be exercised every where, the name of the missionary shall be inserted in the passport, in Chinese characters, which will be taken as proof. The passport shall be canceled in cases where the titulary should have gone back to his own country, should have died, or should have abandoned missionary work. Passports will not be granted in the provinces where there are rebels, nor even hereafter for those where the imperial army is operating, with the evident object of securing loyally the safeguard of the missionaries.

In support of the above scheme the Yamên will recall a missionary case which occurred in the Kwei-chow, where a certain Tchao acted as missionary, albeit his name had no place in the passport register. The Yamên received a letter on this subject from Mr. Interpreter Devéria, in which the latter showed how, according to an old French register, the murdered missionary Tchao had received a passport, dated the 2d day of the 6th month of the 4th year of Tong-che, in which he was called Joué-lo-sse; that this name of Tchao was erroneous; that the victim was really the said Joué-lo-sse; that, on the other hand, the same Joué-lo-sse was inserted under No. 325 as going to Sze-chuen, and thence to Kwei-chow. However, the Yamên was able to convince itself that neither this name of Tchao nor that of Joué-lo-sse figured on its passport register. There was, therefore, a double mistake in the name of the missionary and in that of his residence. How, then, could one establish an identity and secure to the party interested efficacious protection?

There was also an affair of murder committed by the missionary Splingaert on the person of a Russian. This Splingaert was first of all a missionary, then entered the Prussian legation as constable. He none the less retained his passport, so that he handed it over to some one else, or lost it, so that not only an abuse, in passing as a missionary, occurred, but grave inconveniences to public affairs might have arisen in case the said passport had fallen into the hands of the rebels. On the other hand, the dignity of missionaries seems to us to be seriously injured by such irregularities.

Article 6. The aim of the missionaries being to exhort men to virtue, it is befitting that, before admitting an individual to the privileges of religion, he should be examined as to whether he has undergone any sentence or committed any crime. If the examination be in his favor he may become a Christian; if the contrary, he should not be allowed to become one. One ought, moreover, to act as the ministers of our religion do, who give notice to the inspectors of the ten families, and cause the name of the person to be entered in the register with this purpose. In the same way the missionaries ought to give notice to the authorities, who will take note of the day of the month and of the year of admittance, of the country, and of the station in life of the individual, and will ascertain if he has ever undergone any sentence, or if he has ever changed his name. By acting thus all confusion will be avoided. If a Christian should be sent on a mission, and he should die on the way, notice should be given to the proper authority. If, after being converted, a person commits some crime, he should be dismissed, and no longer regarded as belonging to the religion. Every month, or at least every three months, the authorities ought to be informed of the number or conversions. The authorities, also, should act as they do in regard to our temples, that is to say, they should go every month, or at least every three months, to inspect the missions. This course will do no harm to religion, but, on the contrary, will insure tranquillity.

In the ninth year of the reign of Tung-Chih, the government of the Kwei-chow gave notice to the Yamên that at Kwei-ting-shien some people, who were formerly nothing better than thieves, were forming a part of a militia of which the Christians, Yen Yu-shing and Lia Tchang-shine, were the leaders. Passing themselves off as Christians these men were highly thought of; however, they committed all sorts of disturbances [Page 164] killed Wang Tiang-pao and Tsouo-ing-ho, seriously wounded three other persons, and carried off from the houses not only money, but also all the objects which they contained, even down to the very cattle. In the eighth year of the reign of Tung-Chih, the governor of Kwei-chow again warned our Yamên that at Tsoun-i-shien a petition had been addressed, with the object of declaring that some rebels, of whom the leaders were Soung Yu-chan, Tang Cheun-hien, T’ang Yen-chony, Tien Yuen-yuen, had embraced the Catholic religion, and that they still con lined within and without the town to stir up indescribable and countless disturbances and troubles. In the same place also some people named Yang Shi-pouo, Lion Kai-wen, Chang Shioo-ming, Houo Wen-tieou, Tchao Wen-gan, had embraced the Catholic religion; and were even employed in the interior of the mission. However, outside, they practiced all sorts of exactions upon the orphans, and intimidated those who were poor in spirit. They went perpetually to the Yamên, and undertook to regulate the trials. In an affair between a Christian and a countryman, if the mandarin administered justice to the latter, they collected the Christians, invaded the Yamên, and forced the authorities to reverse the sentence. If, in spite of that, the mandarin would not give the Christian up to them, they returned with the card of a missionary, and claimed on his behalf the liberty of their friend. Besides, they committed all sorts of attempts upon persons and properties; if resistance was offered them they struck blows and did not even fear to kill, and were guilty, besides, of many other crimes.

Article 7. The missionaries ought to observe Chinese customs, and to deviate from them in no respect; for instance, they ought not to make use of seals, the use of which is reserved for functionaries alone. It is not allowed them to send dispatches to a Yamên, whatever may be their importance. If, however, for an urgent matter it should be absolutely necessary to write, they may do it; but taking good care not to speak of matters beyond the subject, and making use, like people belonging to the class of literates, of the Sing-tieh, (petition.) When the missionaries visit a great mandarin, they must observe the same ceremonies as those exacted from the literates; if they visit a mandarin of inferior rank, they must also conform to the customary ceremonies. They must not unceremoniously go into the Yamêns and bring disorder and confusion into the affair.

In the sixth year of the reign of Tung-Chih, the governor of the Sze-chuen wrote to us that the French bishop, Monseigneur Pinchon, had, in a letter which he sent to the authorities, made use of an official seal manufactured by himself.

In the seventh year of the reign of Tung-Chih, Monseigneur Faurie, bishop of the Kweichow, handed to the officer charged with the remission of the letters of the government a dispatch to the address of the Yamên to ask that marks of distinction should be accorded to a Taoutae, called Touo-Wen, and to other persons besides.

In the Chan-tung a missionary passed himself off as Sinn-fou, (provincial governor.)

In Sze-chuen and Kwei-chow missionaries took upon themselves to demand the recall of mandarins who had not arranged their affairs to their satisfaction. So it is not only the authority of simple functionaries that they assume; they claim, further, a power which the soverign alone possesses. After such acts how could general indignation fail to be aroused?

Article 8. Missionaries shall not be allowed to claim, as belonging to the church, the property which it may please them to designate; in this way no. difficulty will arise. If the missionaries wish to buy a portion of land on which to build a church, or hire a house in which to take up their residence, they must, before concluding the bargain, go with the real proprietor and make a declaration to the local authority, who will examine whether the Tung-Chouy presents any obstacle. If the official decides that no inconvenience arises for the Tung-Chouy, it will then he necessary to ask the consent of the inhabitants of the place. These two formalities fulfilled, it will be necessary besides, in the text of the contract, to follow the ruling published in the fourth year of the reign of Tong-tche, that is to say, to declare that the land belongs with full rights to Chinese Christians. It will not be allowed in the purchase of properties to make a transfer making use of another name than that of the real purchaser; it will also be forbidden to make this transfer in a manner contrary to law, following the advice of dishonest people.

The missionaries residing constantly in China must strive to inspire confidence, so as not to excite the discontent and aversion of the people; but, on the contrary, to live on good terms with them without ever exciting suspicion. At this moment there is almost always discord between the two parties, and the cause of it is the conduct of the Christians. So as regards the property of the church there have been claims during these last years in all the provinces, and the missionaries exact the restitution without troubling themselves as to whether it wounds the susceptibility of the people or is injurious to their interests. Besides there are fine houses belonging to the literates that they claim and expel the proprietor from them at the shortest notice. But what is worse, and what wounds the dignity of the people, is that they often claim as their property Yamêns, places of assembly, temples held in high respect by the literates and the inhabitants of the neighborhood.

[Page 165]

Certainly, in each province are houses which formerly belonged to the church; but note must be taken of the number of years which have passed since, and it must be remembered that Christians sold these houses, and that they have, perhaps, passed through the hands of several proprietors. It must also be considered that the house was, perhaps, old and dilapitated when sold, and that the purchaser has perhaps, incurred great expense in repairs, or has even built a new one. The missionaries take no account of all this; they exact the restitution, and do not even otter the least indemnity. Sometimes they even ask for repairs to be made, or if not, for a sum of money. Such conduct excites the indignation of the people, who look with no favorable eye on the missionaries. Such being the case no friendship can exist.

The facts which are stated in this memorandum have been chosen as examples among many others to demonstrate what is irregular in the acts of the missionaries, and to prove the impossibility of Christians and non-Christians living harmoniously.

It is urgent, therefore, to seek a remedy for the evil; both one and the other will find it to their advantage, and it will obviate this sole question of the missions becoming fatal to the great interests of peace between China and the West.

We do not attempt to enumerate the many matters which are agitating in the provinces. The object is to separate the tares from the good grain, to punish the wicked in the interest of the good. With respect to commerce, for instance, merchants guilty of dishonesty are severely punished in order to protect the honor of commerce in general. From the time that the missionaries admit every one, without taking care to distinguish between the good and the had, these last pour into the Christian community and support themselves on the missionaries to molest people of property, and despise the authority of the magistrates. Under these conditions the resentment of the multitude grows deep. If the entire Chinese people should, like the inhabitants of Tien-tsin, come to detest foreigners, the supreme authority itself could no longer be able to interpose efficaciously. Such are the dangers which the present situation implies.

The rules which we now propose are the last expression of our firm will to protect the missionaries, and have nothing in their import hostile to them. If they sincerely endeavor to conform themselves to them, good harmony might be maintained; if, on the other hand, the missionaries consider these same rules in the light of attempts upon their independence, or contrary to their rites, they may cease to preach their religion in China. The Chinese government treats its Christian and its non-Christian subjects on a footing of perfect equality; that is the evident proof that it is not opposed to the work of the missions. In return, the missionaries, allowing themselves to be duped by the Christians, do not adhere faithfully to their duties. From this state of things a hatred of the masses must result, which it will be very difficult to combat, and a general overthrow of order, which will make all protection an impossibility. It would be far better from henceforth to speak the truth frankly.

  1. This correspondence has been transmitted to the ministers of the United States in London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Florence, with instructions to transmit a copy in each case to the foreign minister. (See ante, note to Mr. Low’s dispatch to Mr. Fish, of March 30, 1871.)