the irritation & delay of communication with him as possible.
cation & co
&
much
av
Also M. Robertson should, as observed by Mittalland, have communicated the Viceroy's letter of explanation - [in which however I observe that the words on which the whole force of the Explanation depends, are in brackets - intimating that they are not the Viceroy's words but those of the interpreter].
I suppose
are not
-512
Custom Houses for the collection of the duties they apium, wherever like in their own territory. and, by the establishment of effective system of search in their own waters, or by the issue of certificates, or taken such steps fit for the suppression of smuggling from Hongkong, - that if these steps impair the prosperity of Hongkong, that is
a gloss
11. keat as to substance It is clear that the Treaty Tientsin only applies to the British traffic to the open ports. I think I doubted it will can, from the state the Chinese supported by the nature of the case, as shown by a glance at the map, and by the outcry which this Establishment of Custom Houses has created, that there is an enormous amount of smuggling of opium from Hongkong to the neighbouring province.
It is clear that the Chinese have a full right to establish and the incidents to which community which exists by breach of the laws of a neighbouring country must be liable. I think also that if the Chinese had carried out their intention (which they did not) of establishing Hongkong for the sale of certificates which would clear traders at the Chinese Custom Houses - in the nature of a "Caseia passare" - we should not have had a right, as Sir R. Macdonnell says, to call it a levying of export duties in Hongkong. The arrangement seems to me sound enough in principle, if the details were not disrespectful to our Authorities.