288
NOTES AND QUERIES
The reply from the Secretary of State, Lord Salisbury, was, “I approve your proceedings" (F.O.228, v.605, p.237, dated Dec. 9, 1878).
The letter from the Foreign Office to Mr. Herton which he referred to in his letter to Mr. Keswick has not been traced in F.O.228. Perhaps he would have been less pleased with Foreign Office action if he had been aware of the above exchange.
Nothing further appears to have happened until 24th July 1879, when Sir Thomas Wade, who as H.M. Minister in Peking had meanwhile taken over from Chargé d'Affaires Fraser, wrote to Mr. Scott enclosing a memorandum on the Herton claim (F.O.228, v.630, p.101-2), and instructing him to inform the Superintendent of Customs at Kiungchow that the firm's claim for $909.57 was supported, and that the attention of the Chinese authorities in Canton had been directed to the case. It is not entirely clear whether this was before or after Scott's letter of 3rd July, enclosing one from Herton of 2nd July to Sir Thomas Wade (F.O.228, v.630, p.134-6), had reached Peking, though the latter are filed later. Herton claimed that, because of his "unfair treatment at the hands of the Authorities" his business had been "entirely crippled", and he was "now in most pressing need of the money,"
In accordance with Sir Thomas Wade's instructions, Scott wrote on 22nd August 1879 to the Customs, claiming $909.57, and rehearsing the whole affair on the lines of Wade's memorandum (F.O.228, v.630, p.165-7). No reply of substance was received until November, when, on the instructions of the Governor General of the two Kwangs, the old argument was reiterated, that no instructions for issue of transit passes were drawn up until January 1879 and as Herton had made his journeys in 1877 the duties paid were legally charged (F.O.228, v.630, p.174-5). In reply, Scott referred Acting Taotai Liu to the Treaty of Tientsin, art. XXVIII (see note 3 below), and pointed out that transit passes had been obtainable at Shanghai and other open ports for many years. He continued, "Are the Canton Authorities then alone to be free to carry out their individual opinions under pretext of drawing up rules, refuse to issue passes and levy any dues they please in opposition to Treaty rights?"
In