CO882-(2-3) — Page 443

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTLE CO. 882

|| | || || | || | ||

3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED, PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

26

proving their own case; and, in the event of its being shown that they were engaged in a smuggling transaction, they must not look to me for protection; and this is the course I intend to pursue in all future cases of this kind.

The Honourable J. Gardiner Austin.

Sir,

Colonial Secretary, Hong Kong.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

B. ROBERTSON, Consul.

Inclosure 13 in No. 3.

Colonial Secretary's Office, Hong Kong, May 18, 1874.

I AM desired by his Excellency the Governor to return the papers connected with the "Kum-Hop-Sing" junk, and to inclose for your consideration a copy of the opinion given thereon by the Acting Attorney-General.

I am also desired to request that, with a view to the avoidance of more serious com- plication, you will be good enough to urge upon the authorities of Canton the expediency of a searching inquiry into the merits and details of the present case.

Sir Brooke Robertson, C.B.,

Sir,

I have, &o. (Signed) J. GARDINER AUSTIN,

Her Britannic Majesty's Consul, Canton.

Inclosure 14 in No. 3.

Re the "Kum-Hop-Sing" Junk.

Colonial Secretary.

Hong Hong, April 28, 1874. WE have the honour to acknowledge your favour of the 22nd instant, in which you were good enough to notify us that Her Majesty's Consul at Canton was willing to receive and refer further evidence to the Haikwan, subject, however, to the attendance before the Chinese authorities of the master and owners of the junk, and to their punishment, in case it should appear that they were engaged in a smuggling transaction. Our clients cannot accept of the promised aid on such terms, inasmuch as they are well assured that, under the circumstances, the Chinese authorities would subject them to imprisonment, and perhaps torture, ostensibly for alleged smuggling, but really for having exposed the unjus tifiable seizure of their junk.

In our last letter we informed you that we had taken steps to ascertain whether export duty was payable at Tamsui in respect of goods exported from thence in Chinese junks, and we have since obtained, and have now in our possession, irrefragable proof, which we are prepared to submit to your inspection, that no such duty is payable; that junks clearing from thence never have the grand chop; and that, in fact, the "Kum-Hop- Sing," when she cleared from Tamsui, was perfectly in order, having paid all lawful and customary duties. Her subsequent seizure, therefore, on the ground of her owners having defrauded the revenue by the non-payment of export duty, was wholly unjustifiable, and bears out the assurance of our clients that the inquiry alleged to have taken place at Canton was, so far as the Chinese are concerned, a sham, and that Her Majesty's Consul has been wholly deceived by those officials, whose real object is to deter junks from coming to Hong Kong, and to oblige them to discharge at Canton instead.

We have, &c. (Signed)

The Honourable J. Gardiner Austin, Colonial Secretary.

Inclosure 15 in No. 3.

Opinion.

CALDWELL & BRERETON.

THE subject-matter of the accompanying papers strikes me as being of much gravity, and I do not think it is disposed of by the observations of Her Britannic Majesty's

27

Consul at Canton, contained in his two despatches dated respectively the 25th March and 16th April, 1874; nor that the Government of this Colony can, in justice to the Com- plainant, rest satisfied with the kind of investigation it seems to have undergone at that place.

The Complainant, Lai Hing, is, in the Memorandum forwarding his Petition to the Government, officially described by the Registrar-General as a "respectable merchant of this Colony," and belongs, therefore, to that class to whom, by the Proclamation of Sir Charles Elliott, bearing date the 7th day of June, 1841, invitation was extended to resort to and trade in the Colony in these words: "It is hereby declared to the merchants and traders of Canton and all parts of the Empire, that they and their ships have free permis- sion to trade at the port of Hong Kong, where they will have full protection from the High Officers of the British nation."

Without inquiring too closely into the exact meaning of the term "full protection there used, I think it is pretty clear that it implies that when once within the waters of the Colony "their ships" have been promised the same protection that we are bound to extend to those of our own nation; and, if I am right, a duty is thereby cast upon the Government to take every step in its power to protect the native trade from being "seriously, and in many cases most unjustly harassed," as, according to the Registrar- General in the Memorandum I have already cited, it has "unquestionably of late days been, to remove "the feeling of insecurity in trading operations, which," the Registrar- General holds, “was never so strong in the Colony as at present."

I direct attention to this old Proclamation, however, by no means for the purpose of showing that up to the present point the Government has in any way failed in the duty there undertaken, but as supplying good reason for not resting satisfied with the result of its efforts.

Now, if the complaint of this Petitioner is true in every particular (and I certainly see, after most careful consideration, nothing whatever in the papers before me which, for reasons I will presently explain, leads me to suppose it is not true to that extent), it is abundantly clear that an outrage has been committed on his property while under British protection of a kind which, if left unpunished, is calculated to have the worst possible moral effect on the prestige of the Colony, and to reflect on our power or willingness to protect its legitimate trade. If established by evidence, it would, as a matter of law, amount to piracy and robbery. The complaint is therefore of a nature and gravity requiring rigid investigation at the hands of an impartial Tribunal; and this Government is, in the interests of its Chinese denizens, entitled to very clear and definite proofs (by the produc- tion of the evidence, or otherwise) that it has undergone such investigation by process which can be reasonably recognized as judicial, and at the hands of a Court which itself has no interest in the result.

Turning to Sir Brooke Robertson's despatch of the 25th March, I find it very difficult to discover what was really the nature of the inquiry the affair did undergo. The following expression, which he makes use of, "after a searching inquiry into the case both personally with, and by letters to, the authorities," may mean much or nothing. If it means that both parties appeared before and were duly heard by Her Majesty's 'Consul, sitting together with members of some impartial Tribunal appointed by the Chinese authorities to consider and decide the case, the Government of this Colony could ask, I think, for nothing more than a copy of the evidence taken for the purpose of drawing its own conclusions. But if, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Consul has only been put in possession of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses second-hand by the Chinese "authorities, and if this searching inquiry" resolves itself into a mere investigation of the case of the persons who made the seizure of the junk, or on behalf of whom such seizure was made, it is needless to say that it is in the highest degree unsatisfactory.

Moreover, who and what were the authorities referred to ? Her Majesty's Consul does not inform us. But if, as I gather from the offer contained in the further despatch of the 16th April to refer the matter to the " Haikwan," it was the Haikwan or his subordinates who comprised "the authorities" mentioned, it was impossible, having regard to the fact that it was under the authority of the Haikwan, or of his subordinates, that the seizure complained of was effected, and that he or they, or both, were the parties who would profit by it, to select a more unfitting Tribunal.

So much as to this vessel being "legally seized," as we are informed, "I Chinese waters."

The reasons assigned for her seizure strike my mind as being, if possible, still more unsatisfactory. "The master," says the despatch, "could show no export duty receipts for the same, and only a lekin or war tax duty chop."

The master clearly never pretended to have more than this to show, and the Petitioner's case is, that it was impossible to have anything else to show, because, as he