Letters and Journals of James, Eighth Earl of Elgin

by Earl of James Bruce Elgin

April 7th.—I went on Monday to visit a college which the priests have about six miles off, with about seventy scholars. It appeared to be in good order. I walked back with a priest who had been in Canada in our time. He was talkative, and gave me a good deal of information about the Jesuits. It came on to rain very hard as we returned, but we found our letters from home to reward us on our arrival…. No doubt, as you say, one cannot help sometimes regretting that one is mixed up with so bad a business as this in China, but then in some respects it is a great opportunity for doing good, or at least for mitigating evil.

[Sidenote: American missionary.]

I had a visit to-day from Dr. B., who is, I believe, the most eminent of the American missionaries in China. He began by expressing his gratitude to me for the merciful way in which matters had been conducted at Canton, adding that they were bad people, that they insulted foreigners. He had lived among them fifteen years, and had never been insulted when alone. He always went about without even a stick, and they knew that he did not wish to injure them, &c. I then asked him whether there was not some inconsistency in what he had said about their treatment of himself and the epithet 'bad' which he had applied to them. He said that perhaps the word was too strong, that he was much attached to the Chinese, but that certain classes at Canton were no doubt very hostile to foreigners, and that the chastisement they had received was quite necessary. I really believe that what Dr. B. said is pretty nearly the truth of the case, and it is satisfactory to me that the fact that I laboured to spare the people should be known, known not only by those who approve, but by those who abhor clemency.

From the foregoing and similar extracts, it will be seen how much interest he took in the labours of the missionaries, and at the same time with what breadth and calmness of view he handled a subject peculiarly liable to exaggeration on one side or the other. During his stay at Shanghae, it was brought before him officially in the shape of an address from the Protestant missionaries of the port, praying him, in the first place, to obtain a separate decree of toleration in favour of Protestantism, distinct from that which the French had already obtained for the 'Religion of the Lord of Heaven;' and, in the second place, to procure for them greater liberty of travelling and preaching in all parts of China. His reply contained words of grave warning, which have a special interest when read by the light of recent events. After saying that 'it certainly appeared to him to be reasonable and proper that the professors of different Christian denominations should be placed in China on a footing of equality,' he proceeded as follows:—

[Sidenote: Reply to address of Protestant missionaries.]

I should be wanting in candour, however, if I were not to state that, in my opinion, the demands which you prefer involve, in some of their details and consequences, questions of considerable nicety.

Christian nations claim for their subjects or citizens, who sojourn in the East under heathen Governments, privileges of exterritoriality. They are bound, therefore, when they seek to extend their rights of residence and occupation, to take care that those exceptional privileges be not abused, to the prejudice of the countries conceding them.

I cannot say that I think that the Christian nations who have established a footing in China, under the sanction of treaty stipulations obtained by others, or in virtue of agreements made directly by the Chinese Governments with themselves, have in all cases duly recognised this obligation.

Unless I am greatly misinformed, many vile and reckless men, protected by the privileges to which I have referred, and still more by the terror which British prowess has inspired, are now infesting the coasts of China. It may be that for the moment they are able, in too many cases, to perpetrate the worst crimes with impunity; but they bring discredit on the Christian name; inspire hatred of the foreigner where no such hatred exists; and, as some recent instances prove, teach occasionally to the natives a lesson of vengeance, which, when once learnt, may not always be applied with discrimination.

But if the extension of the privileges of foreigners in China involves considerations of nicety, still more delicate are the questions which arise when it is proposed to confer by treaty on foreign Powers the right to interfere on behalf of natives who embrace their religion. It is most right and fitting that Chinamen espousing Christianity should not be persecuted. It is most wrong and most prejudicial to the real interests of the Faith that they should be tempted to put on a hypocritical profession in order to secure thereby the advantages of abnormal protection.