provided that when an Archbishop or Bishop asks for an interview with a Governor-General, Governor, Treasurer, Judge, Taotai, Prefect, Sub-Prefect, Department or District Magistrate, the Chinese official of any of the ranks above mentioned shall return the courtesy in accordance with the rank of the missionary.
The object of the Tsung-li Yamên in arranging definite rules for the relations between territorial officials and missionaries was to facilitate the settlement of missionary questions. As, however, it cannot be claimed that Bishops and others who are doing missionary work in China have in reality any official position they cannot be regarded as being of equal rank with Governor-Generals, Governors, or other officials. The attitude adopted by territorial officials towards missionaries in recent times has, too, been of quite a different character to that existing at the time when these Regulations were laid down. Furthermore, since these Regulations were promulgated there have been cases where missionaries have arrogated to themselves the use of the official insignia of territorial officials, and have thereby given rise to misconceptions in the minds of the ignorant populace. This was certainly not contemplated when the Regulations were issued, and the time is now opportune for introducing such modifications as will make them entirely satisfactory.
The Board request, therefore, that Imperial instructions be issued for the annulment of the provisions contained in the Tsung-li Yamên's Memorial regulating the official intercourse between territorial officials and missionaries in accordance with the rank of the missionaries, and that in future it shall only be necessary that the relations between territorial officials and missionaries shall, in accordance with Treaty provisions, be conducted with courtesy. On receipt of Imperial instructions to this effect the Board will at once issue the necessary directions to the provincial authorities for transmission to their subordinates.
On the 10th April the following Imperial Rescript was received:--
Approved.
<<
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum by Dr. Morrison,
DURING recent years opportunity has been given me to travel in many provinces of China and to discuss, with all manner of men, every conceivable subject dealing with the Empire and its foreign relations. In all this time nothing has impressed me more deeply than the unanimity with which all disinterested observers have condemned Chinese procedure in connection with the Catholic question. Condemnation has indeed gone to the extent of affirming that, probably never in the history of any country has there been a more astonishing surrender of national dignity than when, on the 15th March, 1899 (4th day, 2nd moon, 25th year Kuang Hsü), Imperial assent was given to the Memorial of the Tsung-li Yamên granting Chinese official rank to Catholic missionaries, proclaiming throughout the Empire that a Catholic Bishop was entitled to the rank and dignity of a Viceroy, commanding that even the simplest priest should be accorded honour to that of a Prefect, and decreeing that Catholic functionaries should have the right to arrange affairs locally with the Chinese authorities. Now, in the great majority of cases the Bishop and the priests are of higher rank than the local authorities, for there are few Viceroys--at that time eight in all, now nine--while there are no less than forty-six Catholic Bishops equal in rank to Viceroys. There are 1,100 Catholic missionaries, a number far in excess of local authorities of equal rank, so that in many large areas the Catholic priest has the highest official rank in the whole district. What is the effect of this? If the Bishop and priest are conceded this authority by Imperial Decree, will they not use it? Will not Chinese of bad character join their Church in order to obtain the support of such high functionaries? It is a well-established fact that the exercise of authority and assumption of rank, voluntarily given by China in the Rescript above referred to, are a source of a large proportion of the trouble with which the authorities are confronted in the internal administration of the Empire.
This Rescript ought to be cancelled forthwith. No excuse, no apology. It is purely a question of internal administration. The Rescript was in reply to a Memorial of the Tsung-li Yamên. No explanation need be given; the Rescript has been a failure, circumstances have materially changed since that date. Fair trial has been given. The Rescript should now be withdrawn.
I draw your attention to certain considerations:--
The
1. In the Memorial the words "France" and "French" do not occur. The Memorial was in the interests of the Catholic religion. It was drawn up by Yu K'eng and by Bishop Favier, the latter negotiating not as a Frenchman, but as a Catholic.
2. The Rescript has been adversely criticized by the best Frenchmen. No name stands higher in France than that of Henri Cordier, who is undoubtedly the leading French authority on China. In his work, "Histoire des Relations de la Chine avec les Puissances Occidentales," vol. III, p. 468, M. Cordier, speaking of this Decree, says: “Jamais la France n'eut dû laisser commettre cette faute" (Never ought France to have allowed this blunder to have been committed). He stigmatizes the Decree as no insignificant factor in the many causes which led to the anti-foreign outbreak of 1900. And he declares that "ce Décret intempestif et impolitique doit être rapporté le plus tôt possible" (this untimely and impolitic Decree ought to be withdrawn as soon as possible). When you have a French authority himself urging the repeal of the Decree you cannot lightly disregard his advice, especially as his words were written before those events in France which have led to the expulsion of the very Congregations whom France is protecting in China.
3. Moreover, the Rescript is, I am certain, condemned by the present French Foreign Minister, M. Pichon. When M. Pichon was in Peking it was no secret that, personally, he condemned the Protectorate as disadvantageous to France, because it led to constant embroilment with the Chinese authorities, in cases in which Frenchmen, as such, had no interest. With M. Clemenceau, the Premier, sympathetic, and M. Pichon more than sympathetic, the time could not be better chosen for annulling the Decree. No true French interests would be assailed. On the contrary, there is not a French official in China who has not experienced the anomaly of his position in relation to the Catholic mission, he, the Representative of France, ranking and holding direct intercourse with the Taotai only, while his subject, the French Bishop, or his protégé, the Dutch or Belgian Bishop, have access on an equal footing to the Viceroy.
You seized the opportunity of the presence of Mr. John Morley in the India Office to undertake the task of opium suppression. You have the same, or even more favourable, opportunity with M. Pichon at the French Foreign Office to take in hand the Catholic question, and annul the Rescript which has been so subversive of the authority and dignity of your officials throughout the interior.
4. When that Rescript was issued conditions in China were widely different. How could the Nanchang case have occurred if the Decree of the 15th March, 1899, had not been in existence? Moreover, it is the duty of every Chinese to encourage the national ambition, and to press forward the development of the consciousness of nationality, and how could greater help be given than by repealing a Decree which exalts a foreign missionary Bishop of no standing in his own country to the level of a Viceroy in the country in which he is a stranger? Have you ever seen the progress of a Bishop in the interior? He travels with the state of a Viceroy, with the paraphernalia of a Viceroy, and exacts the honours of a Viceroy. It is worth going to Ningpo--to speak of a port easily accessible--to see Mgr. Reynaud in procession, in order to realize how destructive of the national dignity has been that unfortunate Decree of the 15th March, 1899.
5. Repeal of the Decree, without giving any reasons, or excuse, or apology, further than that the conditions have changed, would meet with the support of the entire English, American, and Japanese press, to cite only the three countries where the press is most powerful. Its repeal would be welcomed in Russia, in Germany--whose Throne is Protestant--and I am convinced it would be received without demur by the immense mass of public opinion in France.
6. The Rescript having been repealed, China could then come into direct relations with the Pope. France at one time exercised the undisputed Catholic protectorate in China. Every Catholic missionary, no matter what his nationality, obtained his passport through the French Legation or through the French Consul. China even now recognizes the validity of such passports, although they are in many cases direct misrepresentations of the truth.
A Dutchman, or Belgian, or Spaniard, or Portuguese, being a Catholic missionary, can claim a passport from the French authorities. That passport speaks of the bearer as "our countryman"—that is, declares him to be a Frenchman--and affirms that the bearer "enjoys a good reputation in our country"—that is, in France, though he may never have been in France. Why should China not dispute these passports? Why should China accept a Minister as "Plenipotentiary" when he is unable to issue a passport to his own Catholic missionary?
7. As you know, Germany has renounced this protectorate. In 1882 the German Ambassador in Paris informed the French Government that in future his country would
39
2
provided that when an Archbishop or Bishop asks for an interview with a Governor- General, Governor, Treasurer, Judge, Taotai, Prefect, Sub-Prefect, Department or District Magistrate, the Chinese official of any of the ranks above mentioned shall return the courtesy in accordance with the rank of the missionary.
The object of the Tsung-li Yamên in arranging definite rules for the relations between territorial officials and missionaries was to facilitate the settlement of missionary questions. As, however, it cannot be claimed that Bishops and others who are doing missionary work in China have in reality any official position they cannot be regarded as being of equal rank with Governor-Generals, Governors, or other officials. The attitude adopted by territorial officials towards missionaries in recent times has, too, been of quite a different character to that existing at the time when these Regulations were laid down. Furthermore, since these Regulations were promulgated there have been cases where missionaries have arrogated to themselves the use of the official insignia of territorial officials, and have thereby given rise to misconceptions in the minds of the ignorant populace. This was certainly not contemplated when the Regulations were issued, and the time is now opportune for introducing such modifi. cations as will make them entirely satisfactory.
The Board request, therefore, that Imperial instructions be issued for the annulment of the provisions contained in the Tsung-li Yamên's Memorial regulating the official intercourse between territorial officials and missionaries in accordance with the rank of the missionaries, and that in future it shall only be necessary that the relations between territorial officials and missionaries shall, in accordance with Treaty provisions, be conducted with courtesy. On receipt of Imperial instructions to this effect the Board will at once issue the necessary directions to the provincial authorities for transmission to their subordinates.
On the 10th April the following Imperial Rescript was received :--
Approved."
<<
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Memorandum by Dr. Morrison,
DURING recent years opportunity has been given me to travel in many provinces of China and to discuss, with all manner of men, every conceivable subject dealing with the Empire and its foreign relations. In all this time nothing has impressed me more deeply than the unanimity with which all disinterested observers have condemned Chinese procedure in connection with the Catholic question. Condemnation has indeed gone to the extent of affirming that, probably never in the history of any country has there been a more astonishing surrender of national dignity thau when, on the 15th March, 1899 (4th day, 2nd moon, 25th year Kuang IIsü), Imperial assent was given to the Memorial of the Tsung-li Yamên granting Chinese official rank to Catholic missionaries, proclaiming throughout the Empire that a Catholic Bishop was entitled to the rank and dignity of a Viceroy, commanding that even the simplest priest should be accorded honour to that of a Prefect, and decreeing that Catholic functionaries should have the right to arrange affairs locally with the Chinese authorities. Now, in the great majority of cases the Bishop and the priests are of higher rank than the local authorities, for there are few Viceroys-at that time eight in all, now nine-while there are no less than forty-six Catholic Bishops equal in 1ank to Viceroys. There are 1,100 Catholic missionaries, a number far in excess of local authorities of equal rank, so that in many large areas the Catholic priest has the highest official rank in the whole district. What is the effect of this? If the Bishop and priest are conceded this authority by Imperial Decree, will they not use it ? Will not Chinese of bad character join their Church in order to obtain the support of such high functionaries? It is a well-established fact that the exercise of authority and assumption of rank, voluntarily given by China in the Rescript above referred to, are a sonrec of a large proportion of the trouble with which the authorities are confronted in the internal administration of the Empire.
This Rescript ought to be cancelled forthwith. excuse, no apology. It is purely a question of internal administration. The Rescript No explanation need be given; no was in reply to a Memorial of the Tsung-li Yamên. changed since that date. Fair trial has been given. The Rescript has been a failure, Circumstances have materially and should now be withdrawn.
I draw your attention to certain considerations :--
3
The
1. In the Memorial the words "France" and "French" do not occur. Memorial was in the interests of the Catholic religion. It was drawn up by Yu K'eng and by Bishop Favier, the latter negotiating not as a Frenchman, but as à Catholic.
2. The Rescript has been adversely criticized by the best Frenchmen. No name stands higher in France than that of Henri Cordier, who is undoubtedly the leading French authority on China. In his work, "Histoire des Relations de la Chine avec les Puissances Occidentales," vol. III, p. 468, M. Cordier, speaking of this Decree, says: “Jamais la France n'eut dû laisser commettre cette faute" (Never ought France to have allowed this blunder to have been committed). He stigmatizes the Decree as no insignificant factor in the many causes which led to the anti-foreign outbreak of 1900. And he declares that "ce Décret intempestif et impolitique doit être rapporté le plus tôt possible" (this untimely and impolitie Deerec ought to be withdrawu as soon as possible). When you have a French authority himself urging the repeal of the Decree you cannot lightly disregard his advice, especially as his words were written before those events in France which have led to the expulsion of the very Congregations whom France is protecting in China.
3. Moreover, the Rescript is, I am certain, condemned by the present French Foreign Minister, M. Pichon. When M. Pichon was in Peking it was no secret that, personally, he condemned the Protectorate as disadvantageous to France, because it led to constant embroilment with the Chinese authorities, in cases in which Frenchmen, as such, had no interest. With M. Clemenceau, the Premier, sympathetic, and M. Pichon more than sympathetic, the time could not be better chosen for annulling the Decree. No true French interests would be assailed. On the contrary, there is not a French official in China who has not experienced the anomaly of his position in relation to the Catholic mission, he, the Representative of France, ranking and holding direct inter- course with the Tuotai only, while his subject, the French Bishop, or his protégé, the Dutch or Belgian Bishop, have access on an equal footing to the Viceroy.
You seized the opportunity of the presence of Mr. John Morley in the India Office to undertake the task of opium suppression. You have the same, or even more favour- able, opportunity with M. Pichon at the French Foreign Office to take in hand the Catholic question, and annul the Rescript which has been so subversive of the anthority and dignity of your officials throughout the interior.
4. When that Rescript was issued conditions in China were widely different. How could the Nanchang case have occurred if the Decree of the 15th March, 1899, had not been in existence? Moreover, it is the duty of every Chinese to encourage the national ambition, and to press forward the development of the consciousness of nationality, and how could greater help be given than by repealing a Decree which exalts a foreign missionary Bishop of no standing in his own country to the level of a Viceroy in the country in which he is a stranger? Have you ever seen the progress of a Bishop in the interior? He travels with the state of a Viceroy, with the paraphernalia of a Viceroy, and exacts the honours of a Viceroy. It is worth going to Ningpo-to speak of a port casily accessible-to see Mgr. Reynaud in procession, in order to realize how destructive of the national dignity has been that unfortunate Deerec of the 13th March, 1899.
5. Repeal of the Decree, without giving any reasons, or excuse, or apology, further than that the conditions have changed, would meet with the support of the entire English, American, and Japanese press, to cite only the three countries where the press is most powerful. Its repeal would be welcomed in Eussia, in Germany--whose Throne is Protestant--and I am convinced it would be received without demur by the immense mass of public opinion in France.
6. The Rescript having been repealed, China could then come into direct relations with the Pope. France at one time exercised the undisputed Catholic protectorate in China. Every Catholic missionary, no matter what his nationality, obtained his
passport through the French Legation or through the French Consul. China even now recognizes the validity of such passports, although they are in many cases direct misrepresentations of the truth.
Catholic A Dutchman, or Belgiau, or Spaniard, or Portuguese, being missionary, can claim a passport from the French authorities. That passport speaks of the bearer as C6
our countryman"—that is, declares him to be a Frenchiman--and affirms that the bearer "enjoys a good reputation in our country "—that is, in France, though he may never have been in France. Why should China not dispute these passports ? Why should China accept a Minister as " Plenipotentiary" when he is unable to issue a passport to his own Catholic missionary?
7. As you know, Gernuany has renounced this protectorate. In 1882 the German Ambassador in Paris informed the French Government that in future his country would
39
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.