CO882-(2-3) — Page 449

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PIC.O.

882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

40

yearly increasing number of the population, the increased value of land in the neighbour- hood of the Chinese section of the town, and the rise in the rental of houses, all point to the conclusion that Hong Kong is an increasing and not a declining place, and that the And when the best possible thing that foreign merchants can do is to let it alone. smuggling fraternity find they cannot obtain their sympathy, or move the Colonial Government to a sense of their wrongs as honest traders under the British flag oppressed by an unjust Government, they will give it up, and turn to honest ways; and then no more will be heard of the threatened ruin of the trade of Hong Kong by the action of the Customs cruizers.

Under the circumstances, therefore, and with every desire to protect the Colony of Hong Kong from injustice being done it, I can arrive at no other conclusion than that the levy of duties complained of is neither directed against nor injures the legitimate trade of the port; but that the illegitimate may suffer from it is very likely.

The reply to the third question, whether Hong Kong, being a free port, can claim on that account exceptional privileges, is very easily given; namely, that it cannot, either by Treaty or international right. The freedom of the port of Hong Kong is confined to its own waters, and not one inch beyond them, for then succeeds Chinese jurisdiction. Ao impression, however, seems prevalent in the Colony that the action of the Haik wan, or Hoppo, in stopping and searching junks after clearing from the harbour is an infringement of the freedom of trade, guaranteed, as they say, by Proclamations. Even the Commission appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong appears to have based its Report (dated Hong Kong, 30th April, 1874), upon the same misapprehension, if what they state is any evidence thereof; for they say, with reference to the conveyance of goods by junks into and out of Hong Kong, "Hong Kong is declared a free port, and the Commission can come to no other conclusion than that any individual who encourages interference with the right attached to that condition of things is acting in defiance of the Proclamations issued by this Government for the regulation of its trade." Now if anything can be made out of the above enunciation, it is that the Hoppo acts in defiance of the Hong Kong Proclamations, and has no right to stop vessels going into and out of the free port of Hong Kong. And this seems to be the deliberate opinion of a Commission formed of officers of the Colony, of whom the Harbour Master was one.

I submit, therefore, that no case has been, or can be, made out, showing the right of the Colony to exceptional privileges, and that such a claim cannot be supported by either Treaties or International law.

With regard to the Chinese petition for protection against the Customs cruizers, I may, in the first place, question the propriety of the English version, as it is somewhat unusual in a public document to term the policy of Her Majesty's Government "submis- sive and forbearing" (the last paragraph but one of petition), or, at all events, in a petition addressed to the Queen. The Chinese version, too, is replete with mistakes. I am told by Mr. Christopher Gardner, Acting Vice-Consul, and Mr. Edward H. Parker, Assistant on this establishment, both Chinese scholars of high reputation, that the chief of these mistakes consists in not giving Her Majesty's name the place of honour at the top of the page, required by Chinese etiquette. These objections may appear trivial to Europeans, but to Chinese are all important. No Chinese would dare to write the Emperor's name without placing it at the top of the page and standing alone. This, together with the almost unin- telligible Chinese in which the petition is written, afford convincing proof that it was not composed by a Chinese, but is the work of some foreigner, who took the English version, and converted it into Chinese as best he could, and this was probably sent round among the Chinese merchants for signature, the greater part of whom, I am informed, refused to sign. This seems apparent; for, of the names attached to the petition, eleven only appear in the Hong Kong Directory, out of the names of sixty-six principal Chinese firms and hongs entered therein, and the remainder are not, in all probability, Hong Kong residents at all. I think, therefore, it is very evident this petition is not a voluntary effort on the part of the natives. In the first three paragraphs much stress is laid on Sir Charles Elliott's Proclamation of the 7th of June, 1841, as inviting "Chinese merchants to resort to Hong Kong for the purposes of trade and commerce, under the promise of full protection from interference on the part of the Chinese Authorities"; and, in consequence, Hong Kong became what it now is, a large centre for Chinese commerce; the progress of which the action of the Chinese Authorities, by the blockade, is materially checking. This is the burden of the Petition throughout, and on this are founded the ills they complain of, on the grounds that the Elliott Proclamation of June, 1841, induced them to invest capital in the Colony, which they are now losing, owing to the "submissive and forbearing policy of Her Majesty's Government." But is this so? and did the Proclamation in question guarantee perfect immunity to Chinese frequenting the Colony from the payment of duties to the Chinese

Government ? For that, divested of the ambiguity in which it is clothed in the Petition, is the real question at issue. Reference to Acts preceding and following the issue of this Proclamation, will show that such was never intended. For instance, the Proclamation of Sir Charles, then Captain,Elliott, of the 20th of June, 1841, notified the cession of Hong Kong to the British Crown on certain conditions, the first of which is: "All just charges and duties to the Empire upon the commerce carried on there (Hong Kong), to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa," (the anchorage near Canton). Here, then, is an explicit acknowledgment of the right of the Chinese to levy duties at Hong Kong.

But the island had been only provisionally ceded, and was in that position when the Proclamation of the 7th of June, five months subsequently, was issued, upon which the Petitions rely. But by the IIIrd Article of the Treaty of Nankin, of August the 29th, 1842, which followed the war of that year, the island was definitely conveyed to the British Crown, and became part and parcel of Her Majesty's Dominions, thus abrogating the two Proclamations above mentioned; and by the Treaty of October 8th, 1843, which supple. mented that of Nankin, it was provided, under Article XIII, "should natives of China wish to repair to Hong Kong to purchase goods, they shall have full and free permission to do so, and, should they require a Chinese vessel to carry away their purchases, they must obtain a pass or port clearance for her at the Custom House of the port whence the vessel may sail from Hong Kong;" and, under the XIVth Article, "An English officer will be appointed at Hong Kong, one part of whose duty will be to examine the registers and passes of all Chinese vessels that may repair to that port to buy or sell goods; and should such officer at any time find that any Chinese merchant vessel has not a pass or register from one of the five ports, she is to be considered as an unauthorized or smuggling vessel, and is not to be allowed to trade, whilst a report of the circumstance is to be made to the Chinese Authorities. By this arrangement it is hoped that piracy and illegal traffic will be effectively prevented." By the XVIth Article, the most important of the three, it was agreed: "That the Custom House officers of the five ports shall make a monthly return to Canton of the passes granted to vessels proceeding to Hong Kong, together with the nature of their cargoes; and a copy of these returns will be embodied in one Return, and com- municated once a month to the proper English officer at Hong Kong. The said English officer will, on his part, make a similar return or communication to the Chinese Authorities at Canton, showing the names of Chinese vessels arrived at Hong Kong, or departed from that port, with the value of their cargoes; and the Canton Authorities will apprize the Custom Houses at the five ports, in order that, by these arrangements and precautions, all clandestine and illegal trade, under the cover of passes, may be averted."

Such were the precautions taken by Her Majesty's Government at that time to prevent Hong Kong becoming a smuggling depot, and the Chinese Government being defrauded of its just dues; and had they been preserved in future arrangements, all troublesome and difficult questions like the present one had never arisen. But by the Treaty of Tientsin, of the 26th June, 1858, which followed upon the third war, the Supplementary Treaty of Nankin was abrogated, and with it went these precautions, while none were substituted, since which, smuggling prospered at Hong Kong, and the Canton Government was driven to take the action now complained of. It is evident, therefore, that when the Petitioners cited the Proclamation of the 7th of June, 1841, as a veto against Chinese Customs sur- veillance of the trade of Hong Kong, they did so on very insufficient grounds, for, at the time that Proclamation was issued, Chinese duties were levied at Hong Kong under the Agreement of the 20th January, 1841, and the right to do so continued until the signing of the Treaty of Nankin in August 1842, when it ceased. So, consequently, the words of the Proclamation, "If there be the least obstruction to trade or intercourse with the port of Hong Kong," have no reference to the so-called blockade, and, as regards its injuring trade, I have before shown it is not so, if official returns are any evidence thereof. The assertion, too, of the jealousy of the Canton Government of the trade of Hong Kong is scarcely worthy of comment, when it is considered what the trade of a small city like that in an island that produces nothing, not even provisions for the inhabitants, is, compared with that of Canton, the capital of the two richest provinces in the Chinese empire, and a great manufacturing city, and the depôt of the large towns on the coast and in the interior. The real trade of Hong Kong is in foreign goods, with which no competition exists in China. Any objection the Chinese authorities may have to Hong Kong is, that it is a basis for the evasion of imperial dues. If that could be adjusted, all cause for objection would be removed.

The statement that within the past two years 300 junks bound for Hong Kong have been seized while entering or close to the port, taken to Canton, and either confiscated or heavily fined, I think is an exaggeration; but I have remarked upon this previously. It is highly probable that more have been seized than have come to my notice, but I doubt any

[218]

M