(7)
30. Sir BROOKE ROBERTSON left for England soon afterwards, and the next despatch is one by the Governor to the Secretary of State, 31st May, 1879, in which he discusses the basis of settlement drawn up by Sir BROOKE ROBERTSON, and that of the Hong- kong Government referred to already-and again objects to the personal view of Sir ARTHUR KENNEDY as to rendition of smugglers. He adds that he is using the Ordinance 6 of 1866 for suppression of Smuggling, although the Attorney General (Mr. PHILLIPPO) opposed that course on legal grounds, and he communicates a resolution of the Executive Council to prohibit the export of Salt, and asks to be allowed to legislate. He further announces that he had prohibited the export of munitions of war by proclamation, under an old Ordinance in existence, and that he has a scheme founded on the Singapore Opium Legislation, but that it would be premature to unfold the details until Sir THOMAS WADE had had an opportunity of consulting the Govern- ment of China on the following paper of proposals, the contents of which are:—
(1o) Abolish present Stations.
(20) Chinese Cruisers to cease to overhaul Junks.
(3o) Junks to pay all duties at ports except on Salt, Opium, and Munitions
of War.
(4) That Salt, Opium, and Munitions of War are not to be exported in future to the Coast of China, except to the Chinese Authorities or to lawfully appointed Chinese Agents.
(5o) That, as regards Opium, it is not to be exported to the Coast of China in any junk that has not a clearance paper shewing that the tariff duty has been duly paid to a lawfully appointed Agent of the Chinese Government. He adds-"Mr. HART approves of this scheme, and Sir THOMAS Wade will give up his own in its favour.”
31. On the 7th November, 1879, the Secretary of State replies that the Governor proposed :-
(1o) Chinese Customs Officers in Hongkong,
(2%) Collection of Chinese taxes on British territory.
The Secretary of State observed that there are grave objections to both these proposals; that smuggling would not cease by Cruisers simply ceasing to overhaul junks. He also points out that the Hongkong Government would have to take on itself the duty of watching the Smugglers, or permit the evasion of the new laws which are proposed to be enacted. The prevention of smuggling would cause expense to the Colony, and throw a responsibility on it which it should not assume. The evasion of new laws would lead to constant complaints by the Chinese Government, and would soon be followed by a renewal of the present system of Blockade.
32. On the 26th December, 1879, the Governor again writes to the Secretary of State to the effect that the Chinese assured him if the Junks were not harassed by the Stations and Cruisers the junk trade would increase four-fold in two years, and again submits a basis of settlement of the Blockade question on which he asks to be allowed to negotiate with the Viceroy, as Sir THOMAS WADE had told Mr. HEWLETT, the British Consul at Canton, to put himself in communication with the Governor of Hongkong on the question.