PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
LCO.
תה חזק
882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
It has been my habit to be frank In this dilemma they sought counsel from me. and open in my dealings with the Chinese Authorities and give them all reasonable I told the Viceroy, who consulted support, and I saw no reason in this case for reserve. me, that he must dismiss from his mind all hope of collecting Imperial duties in the Colony of Hong Kong, which was one of his ideas, for it was against the law, but I considered he had a perfect right to establish Custom stations-another of his schemes- as close to the Colony as he chose, and compel all junks clearing from Hong Kong, or their entering it, and when beyond the limits of Colonial jurisdiction, to call there and duties. Such was the origin of the Customs blockade.
pay
I need scarcely say the commotion it caused to the smuggling fraternity, when the thing was established, was great. The then Governor, Sir Richard Graves Mac Dounell, saw in it only a blow to the prosperity of the Colony, which unquestionably it was—that is, to the smuggling prosperity, and predicted all sorts of evils. 1 held, however, to the position I had taken, conceiving that if smuggling could, by any legitimate means, be prevented from being a source of distrust and alarm to the Chinese Government, it was of more importance for our general interests than any local advantages, based on principles of doubtful integrity, would or could afford. In this I was supported by Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin.
The duty the Viceroy proposed to levy, as above stated, was the "lekin," or war tax on opium, originally imposed on goods, native and foreign, to meet the expenses of the Tae-ping Rebellion, and still levied, although the outbreak has been, for some years, suppressed. The collection of the tariff, or regular duties, belongs to the Department of the Superintendent of Customs, or Haikwan, or Hoppo, as he is variously called by foreigners, who, seeing the great success which attended the Viceroy's scheme, proposed to establish a similar one on his own account, and proceeded at once to obtain steam-vessels and launches, and erect Customs' stations on points near Hong Kong. To this no objec-
was increased. tion could be taken, and thus the stringency of the so-called "blockade"
Complaints, however, occasionally came from the Governor of Hong Kong, of harsh or unjust treatment of Chinese junks trading with the Colony by the Customs cruizers or the Customs officials. There was generally this difficulty in investigating them, namely, the parties complaining would not appear at Canton. However, I did what I could in the way of inquiry in communication with the Haikwan, and I cannot recall a single one of the cases brought before me to which smuggling, or strong suspicion of it, did not attach, either directly or indirectly. In proof of this I have the honour to annex a resumé of eighteen cases which have come before me during the past two years.
That the Chinese Government has an undoubted right to collect its duties within its own jurisdiction, and in the manner it finds most conducive thereto, there can be no question, nor can any exception be taken, unless there is clear evidence of an intention to cripple or annihilate the trade of a neighbouring friendly State. No such evidence, however, exists in the present case, and consequently there are no grounds on which to question that right.
With regard to the second question, "injury to the legitimate trade," I have the honour to state that the Customs' revenue, both from native and foreign trade, forms a considerable portion of the resources of the Chinese Empire; and it stands to reason that the Canton Government would not be guilty of such a suicidal policy as to endeavour to cripple or destroy the trade of the Colony of Hong Kong, which brings into its Treasury a large yearly revenue. I am aware that with the opponents to the “blockade" the common cry is, "the Chinese Authorities wish to ruin the trade of the Colony, but I fail to see the was established for least evidence of such an intention. On the contrary, the "blockade the purpose of collecting the duties of which heretofore the Government had been defrauded, and the larger the trade the more it will collect. Frequently have the authori- ties complained to me of the expenses attending that collection, from being compelled to keep up a fleet of steam cruizers, and asked me whether means could not be devised for collecting the duties in Hong Kong, and thus relieving the Canton Government of the expense and annoyance it is put to under the existing system. Certainly this does not look like the action of the Chinese Authorities being directed against the trade of the Colony, when they themselves would be glad to get rid of the surveillance. In the next place, as regards injuring the legitimate trade of Hong Kong, if the junk_returns published in the Hong Kong" Government Gazette" are to be relied on, there is no evidence of such a result. On the contrary, there has for several years been a steady increase in the number of junks frequenting the Colony, with the exception of last year, when there was a slight falling off, owing, as it is well known, to the badness of trade, which affected both foreign and Chinese merchants equally. Now, if the action taken by the Chinese Authorities had seriously injured the junk trade of Hong Kong, as is averred, a large falling off in the
37
number of these vessels would inevitably have followed. So strong was the idea in the Colony that the trade was being injured, that the Governor appointed a Commission “to investigate certain complaints made by Chinese traders against the action of the Chinese maritime Customs in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong;" and a Report was furnished, which travelled over a great deal of ground, without coming, as I think, to any definite conclusions on the subject. One opinion of the many in this document given by the Com- missioners was, that so long, as the Hoppo's cruizers are permitted to make Hong Kong and its waters the basis of their operations, the junk trade of the Colony, hitherto a highly flourishing one, must be seriously injured. How they arrived at that conclusion it is difficult to say; for, if any reliance is to be placed on the Harbour Master's Annual Returns, a different result will be attained. For instance, taking the two past years, they show the number of junks reported in 1872 was 28,340, of 1,817,810 tons burden; and in 1878 they numbered 27,049, of 1,789,598 tons, showing in the latter year, one of exceptional mercantile depression,—a diminution of 1,291 junks, of 82,212 tons. Now, assuming that these 1,291 junks represented the captures made by the Customs' craizers, which they do not, after all that would be but 4 per cent. on the total number; and if, as stated in the Chinese petition, the captures amounted to 300 in the past year, which is not the fact, the loss would be about 1 per cent. To say, therefore, that either of these percentages would ruin the junk trade of the Colony, is simply incomprehensible. Another proof to the contrary is afforded in the fact that during the past two years but eighteen cases of complaint of seizures have come before me. Now, with the facilities offered by the Hong Kong Government for forwarding complaints through it to that of Canton, the probability is that more than eighteen out of the numbers above mentioned would have been forwarded had the latter any existence. The truth is, that the honest junk trader is never interfered with. All the seizures on which the complaints are based are those of junks employed in the coast trade, where, owing to the scarcity of Custom-houses and absence of local surveil lance, the facilities afforded for smuggling are great. Take the traffic between Canton and Hong Kong, which is very large, and cases of seizure of junks engaged in it are unknown. If the action of these cruizers is such as is represented, why should the Canton junks be exempted ?-the temptation to mulct them is greater, for their cargoes are more valuable than any in the coast trade. The reason, however, is plain enough; they pay their duties, receive their port clearances, and, consequently, are not interfered with by the Chinese- cruizers.
Unfortunately, the foreign portion of the colonists either do not or will not see the matter from any point of view but their own, and that is, Hong Kong is a free port, and the "blockade," as they call it, is an interference with its freedom, and is working ruin to the trade of the Colony. "With smuggling we have nothing to do. We sell our goods to the Chinese, and if they smuggle that is not our affair. All we know and care for is, this blockade affects our sales, and that is sufficient for us; and the Chinese Government has no right, by any action taken for its own benefit, to damage ours." This is an outline of the argument used, and which prompted the getting up of a petition to Her Majesty the Queen by Chinese merchants, and prompted also a public meeting held lately (14th Sep- tember), at which this grievance was ventilated; but it was by no means unanimous in ite opinions. Mr. James Whittall, the head partner in the first house in China (that of Mesars Jardine, Matheson and Co.), gave it as his opinion that, his business not being one of the smallest, he had as good means as most people of ascertaining what was going on; that he had tried to learn whether trade was suffering in consequence of the blockade, but had not heard a single complaint from any legitimate dealer (Chinese). He knew there were "squeezes " in the country, but the blockade of the port, as it was called, had nothing to do with that. The Chinese were simply collecting the dues to which they were entitled, and putting junks on the same footing as steamers, the tax being collected from junks there (Hong Kong) and from steamers in Canton. Although, no doubt, some irregularities might crop up, still they could not say the grievance was as represented.
Property had increased in value, the import trade was greater this year than last, and he could not see how the trade of the place was falling off. Duties were not levied a second time. If a junk wanted to clear the port (Hong Kong), she had only to get a permit specifying her cargo, and, the duty being paid, it was not levied a second time at the port of destination. If a vessel was going on legitimate business she was not interfered with, but she was if found smuggling. He knew there were many Chinese at Hong Kong simply for the facilities of smuggling, but it would never do to encourage trade there at the expense of the Chineè Governinent. After referring to the question generally, and stating that the Chinese were justified in establishing Custom-houses in their own waters, he repeated that there was no blockade of the port, and that the falling off of the trade of Hong Kong had nothing to do with that matter. All Chinese merchants interested in foreign trade would say the same.
[218]
L