231
Whatever may have been the cause, it appears that after 1875 the junk trade, as represented by the Harbour Master's returns, began to improve, and in his report for 1877 the Harbour Master said "It was the general opinion, and I shared in that view, that the blockade would have a tendency to check the trade and consequent prosperity of the Colony, but in the face of the figures which these returns exhibit, I am unable any longer to see that the effect of the blockade has been so detrimental- as it was thought it would be." The figures referred to shewed in 1878 an increase over 1877 of 1,186 juuks entering, and the Harbour Master attributed some of this increase to more correct records being kept, in consequence of an additional outstation at Yaumati. However, there were still com- plaints of the seizure of native craft carrying so-called "contraband.”
From 1877 to 1887 the junk trade, according to the Harbour Master's Reports, fluctuated be- tween 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 tons entered yearly. The highest figures ever attained previously being 28,340 junks of 1,871,810 tons entered in 1872.
In 1887 as a result of the Commnission which sat in pursuance of the Chefoo Agreement (1876), and the additional Article to the Agreement (1885) the collection of duties on goods imported and exported in junks, devolved upon the Foreign Collectorate of the Chinese Maritime Customs, and the Customs Stations round Hongkong were placed under the direction and supervision of a European Commissioner (Mr. F. A. MORGAN).
It cannot, I think, be denied that, even since this change was made, just causes of complaint have at times arisen, and I am persuaded that causes of complaint will continue to arise if the Customs officers are vigilant and zealous, the difference from the old state of things being that, vigilance and zeal will be the disturbing causes, instead of rapacity and dishonesty. The only real panacea is the removal of the primary cause, viz., the Customs Stations themselves.
A careful consideration of all points of the question which occur to me draws me to the con- clusion that, inconvenient though it is, and contrary to the usual manner of nations, we have up to the present no right to object to these Stations; I do not think we have any legitimate grievance against the Chinese Government because it endeavours to prevent junks trading to Chinese Ports with what it declares to be contraband, or to smuggle dutiable goods, no matter where the cargoes have been obtained, always provided that this does not lead to a violation of our territorial waters and that vessels and goods to and from Hongkong are not subjected to any other charges beyond what has been fixed by Treaty.
At the same time I consider that we allow our hospitality to err, even to indiscretion, and we put a weapon in their hands to be used against us, when we allow a Chinese Customs establishment in our midst, for there can be little doubt that by this means our prestige suffers in the eyes of the natives, and what perhaps is of more practical importance, an intimate knowledge can be obtained in the Colony of trading transactions, which, perfectly lawful and harmless so far as our Free Port is concerned, may in China be subject to those Rules appended to the Tariff, which restrict the import of certain descriptions of goods except under special conditions.
But whatever may be said of the present practice of closely investing our port with Customs Stations on all sides and in its midst, it must be allowed that, with the exception of the latter, all these Stations are in Chinese territory, and their closeness may be excused on the ground of the geogra- phical position of the base of operations of those whose business theirs is to watch. The small island of Hongkong with its 50,000 or 60,000 junks annually coming and going, over five-sixths of which trade to and from the Sun On and West River and Canton Districts and all of which radiate to all points of the Compass within an hour or two of leaving this Free Port, offers some reason for the Chinese Government pressing home its revenue protectors as close as they can. That reason dis- appears, however, with the extension of British territory, and the protector's line should fall back simultaneously with this extension, and China should protect her revenue in the same way as any other country does, namely, at her ports of entry and clearance instead of reversing the practice of civilization and protecting it at the Foreign Ports to which she exports and from which she imports.
How far the existence of these Customs Stations has interfered with our junk trade in the past is problematical, and the only solution to be arrived at is by inference, since all direct proof is wanting. There can be no question as to China's undoubted right to collect her Customs revenue somewhere, in her own territory or waters, and it is impossible to say that our junk trade would have been larger if she bad collected her Customs duties at the ports of origin and destination of the goods, instead of at intermediate stations close on our border.
In 1884 our junk tonnage was 49% of the European tonnage, in 1897 it was only 28% and, if certain Licensed Junks which are engaged by the Conservancy and Dust Contractors and which have only been taken into our returns during the last few years, were omitted, the decrease would be even more marked.
On the other hand, our returns show an increase of European ocean-going tonnage since 1889 of 25.33% while the Customs returns show an increase in the number of junks trading to and from Hongkong and passing the stations, of 30.37 %, and it is very probable that the Customs returns are far more accurate with regard to junks than our own, the circuinstances of a Free Port, added to the difficulty of distinguishing and identifying native craft, together with the well-known proficiency with