CO882-(2-3) — Page 453

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Sir,

43

No. 8.

The Earl of Carnarvon to Governor Sir Arthur Kennedy, C.B., KGM.G.

Downing Street, March 22, 1875.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the several despatches noted in the margin," with their inclosures, consisting principally of the following documents:-

(1.) The Report of the Commission appointed by you "to investigate certain complaints made by Chinese traders against the action of the Chinese Maritime Customs in the neighbourhood of the Colony."

(2.) A Memorial, from members of the General Chamber of Commerce of Hong Kong on the same subject.

(3.) A Petition from certain Chinese traders in the Colony on the same subject. (4) A correspondence on the case of the junk "Kum-Hop-Sing."

(5.) A Report of the proceedings at a public meeting held in the City Hall at Victoria on the 14th of September last, "convened for the purpose of receiving information and expressing opinion upon the subject of the blockade of the port of Hong Kong by the Hoppo of Canton."

2. The action of the Chinese revenue cruizers in searching junks entering or leaving the waters of Hong Kong, is directed against the violation by Chinese subjects of the Revenue Laws of their country; but it is characterized by the Commission of Inquiry and by the Memorialists as a "blockade" of the port, and the strong feeling of irritation which has not unnaturally been excited in the Colony by the discussion of such a question, has induced me to postpone until the present time any expression of my opinion, in the hope that a little delay might bring further information on the subject, and also conduce to a more dispassionate consideration of so grave a difficulty; but during the period which has elapsed since the receipt of your despatches, I have given my anxious attention to the facts stated by the Commission of Inquiry, and by the Memorialists, and to the argu- ments which are adduced on behalf of the mercantile community in the Colony, and I have also had the advantage of perusing the despatches on the subject of their complaint which have been addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, and by Her Majesty's Consul at Canton.

3. I inclose a copy of the latest despatch received from Sir Brooke Robertson, and communicated to me by the Earl of Derby,t as it contains a very lucid, comprehensive, and temperate exposition of the whole question, and of the views which he entertains both as to the facts of the case and as to the reciprocal rights and obligations which result therefrom.

4. The right of the Chinese Government to search its national vessels on the high seas or within its own territorial waters cannot be disputed, and therefore the consideration of the question must be confined to the following points :-Firstly. Is the exercise of this right by the Chinese Government in close proximity to the entrances and in the approaches of Hong Kong harbour, but beyond the territorial limits of the Colony, justifiable under the particular circumstances of the case ? Secondly. Have the Chinese officials, in the exercise of such right, committed acts in violation of international law, or to the prejudice of the legitimate trade of the Colony?

5. With regard to the first point, I can well understand the feeling of annoyance occasioned by the exercise of this right of search at the very threshold of the Colony; but it must be remembered that the circumstances of the case are quite exceptional. The existence of a foreign port in juxtaposition to the mainland of China offers to unscrupulous traders facilities for smuggling of which, it cannot be doubted, advantage has been largely With such a VAIS taken, to the serious detriment of the Chinese Customs revenue. extent of seaboard it is not possible for the Chinese Government to check this contraband trade unless they resort to the measures complained of, or are accorded by the Colony such facilities as may enable them to grapple effectually with this undeniable abuse on the part of certain Chinese subjects of the privileges they enjoy in trading with the free port of Hong Kong

6. Her Majesty's Government have had under consideration for several years past an analogous case arising out of the repeated complaints of Spain that Gibraltar is permitted to be made a base of smuggling operations carried on by Spanish subjects along the adjacent coasts of their country. The term "blockade" is not more applicable to the condition of Hong Kong than to that of Gibraltar, where, despite of all demarcation of maritime boundaries, acts of aggression on the part of over-zealous commanders of Spanish revenue cruizers are constantly occurring; but while Her Majesty's Government has been most desirous to devise a remedy for a state of things which causes so much irritation to a

Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

+ No. 5.

49

i

friendly Power, and gives rise to such frequent complaints and recriminations, the right of Spanish revenue cruizers to search their national vessels clearing from Gibraltar, as soon as they have passed the limits of British jurisdiction, has never for a moment bean contested.

7. Therefore, as regards the first point, I am of opinion that the exercise by the Chinese Government of the right of search complained of, in close proximity to Hong Kong, for the purpose of defeating attempts on the part of Chinese subjects to defraud the revenue of their country, does not affect the freedom of the port, and affords no valij grounds for diplomatic remonstrance.

8. With regard to the second point, I can hardly doubt that excesses and abuses, have been committed under colour of this right of search." The Proclamation of the Viceroy of the Two Kwangs, dated as far back as the 6th of February, 1869, shows that even at that time acts of spoliation and extortion were practised by lawless persons, who were stigina- tized in that document as pirates. The evidence establishes that officers of the Chinese Government have been guilty of abuses, and there is too much reason to believe that `unlawful and unauthorized acts have been committed by them to even a greater extent than is capable of exact proof. In this respect the general indignation expressed in the Colony is not without just foundation, and I have learnt with great satisfaction that, in consequence of Sir Brooke Robertson's representations to the Chinese authorities, their revenue steam cruizers have been placed under the Foreign Collectorate of Customs at Canton, and that an officer from that establishment has been specially appointed to exercise a supervision over them. The Consul states that not one case of complaint has since been brought to his notice, but I need hardly assure you that, in the event of any renewed obstruction to the legitimate trade of the Colony, you may rely upon the support of Her Majesty's Government. In the meanwhile, I may state that the Earl of Derby will direct Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin to call the attention of the Chinese Government to the complaints which have, from time to time, been made by the mercantile community in Hong Kong of the interference of the revenue cruizers with the junk trade, and to urge them to issue such instructions as will render the collection of their Customs revenue in the immediate vicinity of Hong Kong as little vexatious as possible to the Government of that Colony, and to the great number of junks frequenting its waters for the purposes of lawful trade.*

9. You will observe that in his despatch the Consul also states that the Chinese Authorities have frequently complained to him of the expenses attending the maintenance of this fleet of steam cruizers, and have asked him whether means could not be devised for collecting their duties in Hong Kong.

10. This brings me to the consideration of a question which underwent much discussion some years ago, and which was adverted to at the public meeting held in the Colony on the 14th of September last. I refer to the proposal made by Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, that a Chinese Consul should be appointed to reside in Hong Kong. Without examining the sufficiency of the grounds which were put forward at that time for rejecting the proposal of Mr. Wade, it appears to me that, looking at it now from a different point of view, and in connection with the difficulty which bas unfortunately arisen, no really substantial argument could be advanced against intrusting to a Chinese Consul in Hong Kong the privilege of collecting from junk-masters the receipts for export duty levied in China, and issuing to them similar receipts for duty payable on account of importations into China, and that the practical advantages resulting from this arrangement would more than compensate the Colony for the inconvenience which has been apprehended from the appointment of such a functionary.

11. I do not overlook the fact that, generally speaking, it is not the duty of one country to assist in enforcing the revenue laws of another, but, in view of the peculiar conditions under which we hold the Island of Hong Kong, and of the facilities offered to smuggling by its exceptional position as a free port in a foreign country, it would be the part of a friendly Power to make concessions even though unimposed by international duty; whereas the appointment of a Chinese Consul in Hong Kong would be no concession at all, but only the recognition of a reciprocal right which China is entitled to claim, in common with all other Powers whose subjects resort to the Colony, if International law and the usage of civilized States is to be applied in our relations with that country.

12. The high character enjoyed by the mercantile community of Hong Kong in due- not more to its wealth and importance than to the ready support it has ever given for the suppression of abuses calculated to compromise, however indirectly, the honour of the British name, and I am not without hope, therefore, that you will be successful in your endeavours to remedy a state of things which exposes the Colony to the imputation of

* The concluding sentence of this paragraph was added to the original draft after the receipt of No. 7.

[218]