PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :-
882
3
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
28
from a local newspaper, but which I have reason to believe is correct, I have the honour to inclose. I should be going over old ground, and unnecessarily lengthening this despatch by further discussion of the question of the so-called blockade, I will therefore confine my remarks to the three propositions Lord Carnarvon has adopted, under the advice of Sir Arthur Kennedy.
1. The suppression of all "revenue cruizers except those under the immediate authority of the Hoppo (Haikwan), who is an officer holding his appointment direct from the Emperor."
As regards this, I have to observe that such a scheme would be impossible. There are three Departments having authority to collect duties: first, the Haikwan, or Superin- tendent of Customs, or Hoppo, as he is variously called, whose office it is to collect the Customs duties; secondly, the Viceroy, under whose jurisdiction is the lekin, or war tax, levied upon merchandize; and, thirdly, the Salt Commissioner, in whose hands is the salt gabelle, which he farms out, being the only Imperial tax so treated. Consequently the proposition to suppress all cruizers but those under the Hoppo's authority is impracticable, for each of the two other Departments must have theirs to prevent smuggling, which in salt, at least, is very great. Moreover, the adoption of such a plan would involve a. complete change in the machinery of the Provincial Government, and that is not likely to find favour at Peking.
2. "A clear understanding of the Tariff, and publication of the Chinese Customs Regulations, together with the ports and stations at which duties are leviable and payable."
On this I have to remark that, in reply to my several applications to the Haikwan for information and copies of the Chinese Tariffs, I was informed that for junks proceeding to Hong Kong that annexed to the Treaty of Tien-tsin was in use, and as regarded the native one, it depended chiefly upon localities.
Now, I have previously shown how it is the Tien-tsin Tariff is brought into operation upon junks, and consequently the Haikwan said what was perfectly true. Respecting the native Tariff there is one which can be bought at any bookseller's in the city, but it is not strictly adhered to; almost all the prefectures have a scale of their own, varying according to circumstances. This Tariff, however, may be taken as an authority; and all that I required was that it should be given to me officially; but this was evaded, the reason I believe being that it would only give rise to fresh complications with the Hong Kong Government, and that no right to make the demand or any obligation to yield to it existed, nor am I prepared to say are there such, although the Governor of Hong Kong speaks of it as one. As a courtesy it might perhaps be conceded; but, I fear, we may not look for that so long as the present situation continues. As regards the ports and stations at which duties are leviable and payable, I think the reasons given for evading giving a copy of the Chinese Tariff officially are applicable to this proposition.
The Governor of Hong Kong is doubtless moved by the desire to protect the trade of the Colony direct and indirect, and when he said "British subjects and Chinese dwelling and trading under our flag have a right to know what the legal revenues are, where and to whom they are to be paid," he states what, as a general rule, is true, but Chinese may demur to this view of the matter, and say our subjects go to Hong Kong for their own profit and convenience, we do not see that this authorizes the Government there to question our position or to demand what our legal revenues are, and where and to whom they are to be paid. That may be a custom of Europe, but it is not one of China, and every country reserves to itself the right of following its own regulations.
I do not say the Chinese are wholly correct in this view of the position; but I imagine from previous experience it is the one they would take, and I do not see that we should be justified in, as Sir Arthur Kennedy says, "firmly insisting upon them."
3. "The appointment of a Joint Board to sit at Hong Kong or Chinese Kowlong to investigate cases of alleged illegal seizures, with publication of the decision in each
case.
From my experience of joint investigations I fear such a Board would lead to endless complications, and agreement between the Commissioners would be exceedingly difficult, entailing an appellant jurisdiction somewhere. The admission of lawyers, too, could scarcely be refused in a Court where the proceedings are, as Sir Arthur Kennedy sys, "to be conducted in public and the decisions published," and it is not difficult to conosive the trouble that would entail. Moreover, I doubt that the Chinese Government wouldd consent to the arrangment, but that, of course, I am unable to say; nor do I see in scheme the prospect which Sir Arthur Kennedy sketches "that such a Board would satisfy the ends of justice and all reusenable men, and that the agitation would die out" simply because I do not think it would work.
29
I will not intrude further upon your time beyond adding that it is expedient in every way to avoid asking for what may not be granted, and I am inclined to think there would be some demur on the part of the Chinese Government to these three propositions. In my opinion, if the question of the right or not in the Haikwan to levy duty upon joint goods, exports or imports, according to the Tien-tsin Tariff, could be settled on the basis that no
nei ti shui" or local duties be levied, the solution of the main question about the blockade would be arrived at, and the cordon of cruizers withdrawn; and this, perhaps. might be accomplished by diplomatic intervention. Cruisers there must be, of course, with the propensity of Chinese to smuggle, and the temptations offered by the position of Hong Kong and its ready market, but the stringency of the watch would be relaxed, and the "agitation would die out."
As regards the future, I am still of opinion that the remedy will be found in the appointment of a European Chinese Consul or Vice-Consul, whose duty it would be to check the cargoes of junks and report thereon to the Customs authorities at Canton. This at least would be a legitimate plan, and such as is practised by the United States' Consul in cases of vessels arriving from and clearing for America, and my own impression is it would be found to work satisfactorily, and if any cause of complaint arose it could be investigated by him in conjunction with such officer as the Governor might be pleased to appoint.
Sir Thomas Francis Wade, K.C.B.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
No. 16.
B. ROBERTSON, Consul.
Governor Sir A. E. Kennedy, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the Earl of Carnarvon.-(Received April 4.)
(No. 27.) My Lord,
Government House, Hong Kong, February 15, 1876.
I HAVE the honour to transmit the copy of a letter from the Honourable Mr. Ryrie, dated 10th February, 1876, covering the copy of a letter addressed to your Lordship by the Chamber of Commerce of Hong Kong dated 8th February, 1876.
In view of former correspondence, more especially your Lordship's despatches named in the margin,* I think it unnecessary on the present occasion to offer any lengthened remarks beyond stating that there has been no alteration in the action of the Canton Government, and that no statement of the Tariff of export and import duties which they claim to levy on the trade of Hong Kong has been received.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) A. E. KENNEDY.
Inclosure 1 in No. 16.
Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, February 10, 1876.
BY desire of the Committee of this Chamber I have the honour to inclose herein a letter (in triplicate) addressed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Carnarvon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of the blockade of the port, which have to request that his Excellency the Governor will forward.
The Committee desire me to avail of this opportunity to respectfully submit to his Excellency their opinion that regulations might be made in regard to the entrance to am departure from this harbour of the Hoppo's cruizers and their tenders, which would materially check their predatory operations. The Committee are informed that at Gibendar the Spanish guarda costas are not permitted to enter British waters on any pretext what. ever. I would also beg to state as their opinion that it is most unfortunate that the Government have thought fit to accord to the vessels in question the status of men-of-war, to which they are in no respect entitled, the only warfare" they carry on being against the commerce of this Colony.
The Hon. J. Gardiner Austin, Colonial Secretary.
(574)
I have, &c. (Signed)
• Nos. 4 and 7.
P. RYRIE, Chairman.
I