(No. 225.) My Lord,
12
No. 8.
Sir H. Parkes to Earl Granville.-(Received December 3.)
302
Peking, October 15, 1884. I INCLOSE translation of the reply of the Tsung-li Yamên to the note I addressed them on the 7th instant on receiving telegraphic intelligence of the occurrence of serious riots at Hong Kong, which were attributed to the Proclamation of the Viceroy of Canton of the 15th ultimo. I forwarded a copy of this note to your Lordship in my despatch No. 204 of the 7th instant.
The reply is not satisfactory, as it defends the rioters, whose reluctance to work on French ships is ascribed-it might be supposed ironically-to their desire to observe the British neutrality laws, and it attributes the riot to precipitate action on the part of the Hong Kong Government. It also declines to direct the republication of the Imperial Decree in the form of a Proclamation at Canton.
I saw the Prince and Ministers the day after I received this note, and told them that I was disappointed with its tone, but that I should not reply to it until I had received written particulars from Hong Kong. That I regretted that the Yamên should have ignored my reasonable request for the publication of the Decree by Proclamation, and I requested them to take note that I had requested this to be done in view of the responsi- bility which would attach to the Chinese Government if further troubles should be occasioned by the flagitious Proclamation of the Canton authorities.
The Prince and Ministers replied that the fullest publicity had been secured to the Decree by its insertion in the "Peking Gazette," and that its republication at Canton in the form of a Proclamation by the same high authorities who were censured in the Decree raised questions of expediency in which those authorities must be allowed to exercise some discretion.
In my despatch No. 203 of the 7th instant I inclosed the remonstrance which Her Majesty's Consul at Canton had addressed to the Viceroy on this subject. I now add a translation of his Excellency's reply, which is also a defence of his action in publishing the offensive Proclamation.
⚫(Translation.)
I have, &c.
(Signed) HARRY S PARKES.
Inclosure 1 in No. 8.
The Tsung-li Yamên to Sir H. Parkes.
Peking, October 10, 1884. THE Prince and Ministers have the honour to acknowledge the receipt, on the 7th instant, of the British Minister's note, in which he states that the Hong Kong Government had telegraphed to say that the Chinese in Hong Kong had prevented any work being done on French ships, or supplies furnished to them, and that some boatmen having refused to work for French mail-steamers they were fined, with the result that there was a rising of the Chinese and a general cessation of labour. The police who tried to disperse the mob were assaulted and fired on the rioters, order being restored by the authorities.
The British Minister requested that orders might be sent by telegraph that copies of the Decree of the 29th September should be exhibited.
The Yamên have to observe that the high authorities at Canton have already been censured by Imperial Decree for the use of improper language in the Proclamation previously issued by them. The Decree having been proclaimed to the whole Empire, it has already been seen or come to the knowledge of every one in the capital or the provinces.
With regard to the objection of the people in Hong Kong to work for French ships, the Yamên are of opinion that this reluctance was due to a desire on their part to observe the British neutrality laws, and that they could not possibly have acted as they did at the instigation of individuals. The cessation of work and rioting was caused by the fine to which [the boatmen] were subjected. Otherwise, it may be asked, Would these people who gain their livelihood by labour have abandoned their means of subsistence of their own free will for no reason whatsoever?
This affair was fomented by the precipitate action of the Hong Kong authorities, and is undoubtedly no concern of the Chinese Government. The people of Hong Kong have
C 0. 21297
To 0CC 34/1