18
And in a subsequent despatch to Lord Aberdeen Mr. Davis said :-----
"I am desirous to express my entire concurrence in his (Sir H. Pottinger's) views and opinions concerning Macao, and the impolicy of regarding that place as any other than a portion of the Chinese dominions, where the Portuguese are permitted to reside on mere sufferance. Chinese sovereignty there is acknowledged—as they drove the English merchants away from that place in 1839, with or without the concurrence of the Portuguese, their vassals—it would be pregnant with the greatest inconvenience to admit the pretensions of the Portuguese also, and so have to do with two masters at the same place. The Portuguese claim to allegiance from British residents might be answered at once by their avowed inability to afford protection."
1845.
In March 1845, in consequence of Mr. Rickett's retirement, the question again arose as to the appointment of a Consular Agent at Macao, with a salary of £500 a-year, when Mr. Davis was informed that, as he appeared to consider the maintenance of that office to be no longer requisite, he was at liberty to abolish the situation altogether, or to make some more economical arrangement for the performance of the limited duties which such an officer might be called upon to execute; but what arrangement was made is not recorded.
September 1849.
In July following, Baron Moncorvo addressed a note to Lord Aberdeen, complaining, on the part of the Portuguese Government, of an official notification addressed by Sir John Davis to the Governor of Macao, to the effect, as stated by Baron Moncorvo, “that all British subjects, either settled or sojourning at Macao, would thenceforward be subjected to British laws, both in civil and criminal cases.”
59
Sir John Davis' notification to the Governor of Macao was with reference to an Ordinance of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, by which the Courts of Justice at Hong Kong were empowered to proceed against any British subject who might be guilty of any criminal offence or civil injury at Macao.
147
To Baron Moncorvo;
July 29, 1845.
Baron Moncorvo;
September 9, 1845.
State Papers, vol. xliv, p. 661.
19
In his note complaining of this Ordinance, Baron Moncorvo spoke of it as intrenching on the rights of Portugal "in one of her possessions," her sovereignty over which "no other Power had ever disputed" and whose origin was owing to the acts of valour displayed by the Portuguese arms. Baron Moncorvo admitted the payment by Portugal
39
of a "quit-rent or annual consideration to the Chinese authorities, but denied that that payment could serve as an argument against the absolute sovereignty of Portugal over Macao, it being only "the result of adjustments made between the Governments of Portugal and China for the peaceable enjoyment of the commerce carried on by the Portuguese with China," and alluded to the fact that similar payments had been made by European nations to the Barbary Powers for the protection of their trade from privateers.
Lord Aberdeen, in his reply to Baron Moncorvo, did not consider it necessary to allude to other passages in his note than that relating to the Ordinance itself, which he explained as merely announcing that British subjects should be amenable to a Tribunal established within the British dominions for deeds done by them, or for engagements contracted by them in a place out of the British dominions; and his Lordship added that it in no way "impugned the rights which the Crown of Portugal possessed in Macao, whatever those rights might be."
Baron Moncorvo expressed the satisfaction of his Government at this explanation, describing in his note the Ordinance in question as "extending the jurisdiction of the English Courts in the manner ordered by the Act 9 Geo. IV, cap. 31, sec. 7, so that the British subjects residing at Macao were there amenable, as heretofore, to the Portuguese Tribunals." Here the correspondence ended.
On the 20th November following a Portuguese Decree was issued directing Macao to be a free port.
f
$
1848.
State Papers, vol. xxxviii, p. 1059.
On the 11th August, 1848, an Act of Congress was passed by the United States, to carry into effect certain provisions of the Treaty with China of the 3rd July, 1844, giving certain judicial powers to
Page 150
Page 151