10
substance to the scheme embodied in the three sets of Rules under consideration, it would be better to dispense for the present with the intervention of the proposed Com- mission, which might more usefully be nominated at some later period when the scheme has been some time in operation, for the purpose of discussing any questions of detail and removing any practical difficulties in its working. The three sets of Rules to which I refer are those transmitted by Sir A. Kennedy in his despatch of the 28th February, 1877,* as the basis of settlement proposed by Sir Brooke Robertson on the one side, and the Hong Kong Government on the other; and the new set of Rules proposed by Sir Brooke Robertson and transmitted by Governor Hennessy in his Confidential despatch of 30th August, 1877.†
The new set of Rules proposed by Sir Brooke Robertson are in my opinion too meagre, and, save as regards the publication of the Tariff and the power of the Governor to appoint an officer to watch the proceedings at Canton in cases of capture, they do not modify the existing state of things in favour of the Colony.
These Rules provide that junks bound to or clearing from Hong Kong shall touch at one of the three Chinese Revenue Stations now established in the vicinity of the Colony, for the purpose of paying the import duties into China or showing receipts for the export duties. (This system is already enforced on junks by the so-called blockade of Hong Kong.) The Rules further provide that the junks frequenting Hong Kong shall, on arrival, present to the Harbour-Master of the Colony a certificate from one of the Revenue Stations that the export duties from China have been paid, and on failure to do so they will be ordered to quit the Colony. On the other hand, junks clearing from Hong Kong are to receive from the Harbour-Master of the Colony a certificate, which the master is to exchange at one of the Chinese Revenue Stations for a clearance certificate upon payment of the import duties into China. The failure to comply with these provisions is to render a junk liable to capture and adjudication by the Chinese Customs authorities. (These Provisions are solely for the benefit of the Chinese.)
The Rules next provide that in case of complaint by the master of a junk of the action of the officers of the Revenue Stations, it will be forwarded to Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, and the Governor of Hong Kong may, if deemed expedient, appoint an officer of the Colonial Government "to sit with Her Majesty's Consul and the Superintendent of Customs, or their deputies, during the examination." This Rule is so far satisfactory, as Sir Brooke Robertson has hitherto maintained the opinion that the Hong Kong Government should not interfere for the protection of its native trading community, but should let them seek redress from their own authorities. The Colonial Office could not subscribe to this view of the question, as may be seen by the printed correspondence laid before Parliament. Under this Rule the Colonial authorities will, at all events, be permitted to watch the proceedings in cases of alleged illegal captures.
The remaining provision of Sir Brooke Robertson's new Rules relates to the publication of the Tariffs. So far as the Rules go, they seem to me free from objection, but, as I have above remarked, they seem to me too meagre, and there are certain additions and modifications which I would recommend, and which I will proceed to explain before dealing with the question of the Tariff.
It appears to me very desirable that the new Rules should provide for the appoint- ment of a Foreign Assistant, who should supervise the proceedings of the Chinese employés at the three stations by frequent personal visits, and to whom junk masters might appeal at once for redress. On this point I would refer to Sir Brooke Robertson's original Rules 2 and 4.§
I also think that a junk arriving without the certificate should be detained by the Hong Kong Harbour-Master, and notice should be given to the nearest Customs station, instead of the junk being ordered to leave the harbour, as provided by Rule 2.
Further, that Sir Brooke Robertson's original Rule 4 should be retained, so far as it prescribes a special flag for all revenue boats and a special uniform for their crews. On this point I would refer to the letter of the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office of the 9th August, 1875. Likewise, that his original Rule 7 should be retained and supplemented. It provides that not only the Tariff of dues shall be published but
* Inclosure in Colonial Office, April 25, 1877, ante, pp. 5 and 6,
+ Inclosure iu Colonial Office, November 27, 1877, ante, p. 7.
Further Correspondence, p. 14, Colonial Office to Foreign Office, January 27, 1876.
Colonial Office, April 25, 1877, ante, p. 5.
Parliamentary Paper, Further Correspondence, p. 4.
go
11
also the penalties for breach of Customs Regulations; and I think the Rule should further and declare that the certificate granted will clear the junk from further duties, not merely as stated in new Rule 3, "until she arrives at her destination," but from all duties at the port of destination.
On this point I would refer to the following extract from the letter from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office of the 27th January, 1876:-*
"One of the gravest complaints referred to (in the Report of the Hong Kong Commission) is that the import duty into China levied on junks clearing from Hong Kong is, in some cases, exacted over again at the port of destination, where the payment made to the Cantonese officials is ignored. No attempt has been made to refute this charge, and it is manifest that, if the Hong Kong Government is not furnished with the native Customs Tariff and Regulations, it cannot be ascertained to what an extent illegal practices are carried on by the Hoppo. The refusal of that functionary to supply the information required, necessarily leads to the inference that either no fixed Tariff exists, and, therefore, that native Customs are levied in an arbitrary manner incompatible with the usages of civilized nations, or that, if a fixed Tariff does exist, its publication would unveil the malpractices complained of, and reveal the extent to which the Colony of Hong Kong is practically subjected by the Hoppo to an export and import tax for the benefit of the Imperial or Provincial Exchequer."
I would refer also to paragraph 5 of the Colonial Office letter to Foreign Office of 9th August, 1875, which is as follows:-†
"Lord Carnarvon is informed by Sir A. Kennedy that he has failed in all his efforts to obtain from the Cantonese authorities a statement of the Tariff of export and import duties which they claim to levy on the trade of Hong Kong, and this circumstance gives additional weight to the complaint referred to in the fourth paragraph of the letter from this Department of the 3rd of March last, that an export duty is exacted on goods leaving the Colony, as if Hong Kong were part of the territory of China.”
This view is confirmed by the passage in Sir T. Wade's Memorandum of the 28th February, in which he observes that the Hoppo of Canton "remarking that there was no authority to control irregular trade between Hong Kong and the Chinese coast (as he, whether ignorantly or impertinently, put it, 'no Consul at Hong Kong '), proceeded to control it himself.”
It will be seen from the above extracts that the settlement of Tariffs is the most difficult and important part of the whole question, and the first that should be grappled with.
It is easy enough to enforce the payment of duties by any system of the kind proposed, but we must take care that, in discharging our moral obligations, we do not assist the Chinese authorities to plunder us; and for this purpose it appears to me manifest that a Tariff should be fixed such as will dispel for ever the audacious pretensions of the Cantonese authorities that they may treat Hong Kong for revenue purposes as if it were part of the Province of Kwang Tung.
Hong Kong is a foreign port, and I agree with Sir T. Wade‡ that it should be placed precisely on the same footing for Chinese revenue purposes as Singapore Manila, or Saigon. It is afirmed by Sir Brooke Robertson that such is the case now, but this is denied by the Chinese merchants of Hong Kong (see Inclosure 1 in Sir A. Kennedy's despatch of 13th July, 1876, Parliamentary Paper, Further Correspondence, p. 36), and a perusal of the printed correspondence can hardly fail to satisfy any impartial reader that the Chinese authorities, by imposing a variety of extra taxes and surcharges on junks trading between Hong Kong and the mainland of China, practically levy a revenue on Hong Kong, by exacting in their own ports, in addition to their own import and export duties, the export and import duties which they would impose in Hong Kong if the Island were Chinese territory.
On this most important point I would draw particular attention to the letter addressed by the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office on the 20th May, 1876, com- menting on Sir Brooke Robertson's despatch to Sir T. Wade of the 18th January, 1876.§ and also to Sir A. Kennedy's despatch to the Earl of Carnarvon of 13th July, 1876, on the same subject, inclosing a Minute thereon by three of the principal British merchants of Hong Kong (members of the Legislative Council), and also a CC on the Chinese Memorandum by Mr. James Russell, Acting Registrar-General,
* Parliamentary Paper, Further Correspondence, p. 14. + Parliamentary Paper, Further Correspondence, p. 5. See printed letter of July 14, 1877, on Chefoo Convention, p. 56.
§ See Parliamentary Paper, Further Correspondence, August 8, 1870, p. 23.
Ibid., p. 53.
170