Pakenham to Hamilton Fish, August 24, 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.,
[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 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 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.