THE relation of the missionary to the consular and diplomatic representatives of his own government is another topic of perennial criticism. Some European Governments have persistently and notoriously sought to advance their national interest through their missionaries. France and Russia have been particularly active in this way, the former claiming large rights by virtue of its position as ``the protector of Catholic missions.'' The result is that the average Chinese official regards all missionaries as political agents who are to be watched and feared. Dr. L. J. Davies, a Presbyterian missionary, says that he has been repeatedly asked his rank as ``an American official,'' whether he ``reported in person'' to his ``emperor'' on his return to his native land, how much salary his government allowed him, and many other questions the import of which was manifest. The typical consul and minister, moreover, find that no small part of their business relates to matters that are brought to their attention by missionaries. Sometimes they manifest impatience on this account. One consul profanely complained to me that three-fourths of his business related to the missionary question. He forgot, however, that nine-tenths of the nationals under his jurisdiction were missionaries, so that in proportion to their numbers, the missionaries gave him less trouble than the non-missionary Americans. In answer to an inquiry by the Rev. Dr. Paul D. Bergen, of the Presbyterian Mission, seventy- three missionaries, of from five to thirty years' experience, and representing most of the Protestant boards, reported a total of only fifty-two applications through consul or minister. The Hon. John Barrett, formerly Minister of the United States to Siam, writes: ``Let us be fair in judging the missionaries. Let the complaining merchant, traveller or clubman take the beam from his own eye before he demands that the mote be taken from the missionary's eye. In my diplomatic experience in Siam, 150 missionaries gave me less trouble in five years than fifteen merchants gave me in five months.'' Doubtless some diplomats would be glad to have the missionaries expatriate themselves. In the United States Senate the Hon. John Sherman is reported to have said that ``if our citizens go to a far-distant country, semi-civilized and bitterly opposed to their movements, we cannot follow them there and protect them. They ought to come home.'' Is, then, the missionary's business less legitimate than the trader's? Is a man entitled to the protection of his country if he goes to the Orient to sell whiskey and rifles, but does he forfeit that protection if he goes there to preach the gospel of temperance and peace?