EXTRATERRITORIALITY  197
may  find  in  such  a  situation  a  spark  to  initiate  a  great  conflagration. ­
  No  missionary,  none  of  ourselves,  could  refuse
his  support  in  such  a  case  ;  and  yet  few  missionaries  consider ­
  that  the  support  should  be  given  :  almost  to  a  man
they  think  that  they  must  regard,  in  such  matters,  what  is
lawful  and  not  necessarily  what  is  right  ;  and  almost  to  a
man  it  is  always  “  the  other  fellow  ”  who  does  these  things.
With  all  this  self-abnegation,  direct  interference  and  direct
representations  to  the  judges  of  the  land,  in  cases  of  “  religious ­
  persecution,”  in  suits  for  debt,  in  land  suits,  and  even
in  criminal  cases,  are  only  too  common  ;  and  in  some  parts  of
the  country,  notably  in  Chekiang,  Catholic  and  Protestant
converts  frequently  engage  in  clan  fights,  while  the  missionaries ­
  on  either  side  charge  those  on  the  other  with
fomenting  the  trouble  and  with  enlisting  the  aid  of  the
officials  to  support  their  side.*  The  strength  of  a  chain  is
that  of  its  weakest  link,  and  the  rights  of  the  missionary  in
the  interior  may  some  day  have  to  be  tested,  not  by  the  conduct ­
  of  the  decent  majority,  but  by  that  of  an  aggressive
minority  bent,  for  one  reason  or  another,  on  extending  their
own  extraordinary  rights  to  Chinese  converts,  who  otherwise ­
  must  share  such  justice  as  is  meted  out  to  their  fellowsubjects.

There  are,  however,  two  sides  to  this  question.  There
are  numerous  cases,  susceptible  of  proof  to  the  man  on  the
spot  but  of  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  carry  conviction
to  the  minds  of  those  at  a  distance,  where  the  missionary
undoubtedly  intervenes  to  make  capital  for  his  mission,  and
to  secure  for  his  followers  some  tangible  advantage  from
their  acceptance  of  his  propaganda.  At  the  other  extremity
there  is  the  manifest  tendency,  clearly  recognised  by  all,
even  the  most  impartial,  but  quite  incapable  of  legal  demonstration, ­
  for  the  judges  of  the  land,  in  cases  where  the  right
is  not  obviously  on  one  side  or  the  other,  to  decide  ex  motu
suo  against  the  convert  ;  ostensibly  such  decisions  are  given
on  as  good  legal  grounds  as  any  case  in  China  is  ever  decided, ­
  but  practically  the  underlying  reason  is  the  convert’s
*  See  Appendix  D.