CO882-(3-4) — Page 85

PUBLIC

RECORD

OFFICE

2「 ། 4། །

Reference -

C.O.

882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

22

most unsatisfactory. It must be borne in mind that, as stated by Sir Brooke Robertson in his despatch of the 1st of December, 1874, it was one of the ideas of the Viceroy to collect the Imperial duties in the Colony of Hong Kong, and that those Imperial duties consist not only of an import duty payable at the port of destination in China, but also of an export duty exacted at the place of shipment in China, though the destination of the shipment be a port in another Chinese Province. Hence the attempt of the Hoppo to levy an export duty on goods leaving Hong Kong, as if the Colony were part of the Province of Kwang Tung. This proceeding, which not unnaturally roused the indignation of the Colonists, was discovered in the investigation of the seizures of the junks “Tai Hing," "San Fat," and "Kam Hop li," referred to in the fourth paragraph of the letter from this Department of the 3rd of March, 1875.§

t

In the same paragraph, Lord Derby's attention was drawn to the case of the Kum Hop Sing," in which the Hoppo levied an export duty on goods shipped to Hong Kong from a port in the Island of Formosa, which is not within his revenue jurisdiction, but in that of the Province of Folkien, and where no other duty but the "Lekin," or war tax (which, in this case, had been duly paid) had ever been imposed on exports.

4. It will be seen from the documents referred to in the margin, that all the statements of fact put forward in defence of the Hoppo in this case are positively denied. One of the gravest complaints referred to in that letter is, that the import duty into China levied on junks clearing from Hong Kong, is, in some cases, exacted over again at the port of destination, where the payment made to the Cantonese officials is ignored. No attempt has been made to refute this charge, and it is manifest that, if the Hong Kong Government is not furnished with the native Customs Tariff and Regulations, it cannot ascertain to what an extent illegal practices are carried on by the Hoppo. The refusal of that functionary to supply the information required, necessarily leads to the inference that either no fixed Tariff exists, and, therefore, that native Customs are levied in an arbitrary manner, incompatible with the usages of civilized nations, or that, if a fixed Tariff does exist, its publication would unveil the malpractices complained of, and reveal the extent to which the Colony of Hong Kong is practically subjected by the Hoppo to an export and import tax for the benefit of the Provincial or Imperial Exchequer. Sir Brooke Robertson holds out no hope of the Chinese authorities reforming their fiscal system; yet he greatly deprecates the intervention of the Hong Kong Government in favour of the Chinese traders of the Colony, whose incessant complaints, though, in many cases, shown to have been frivolous and without just cause, have, on the whole, established to the satisfaction of the entire community, that a system of arbitrary exaction and illegal seizure has long been carried on, and that, to a greater or less degree, it still exists. Sir Brooke Robertson is of opinion that the Hong Kong Government should not interfere for the protection of its native trading community, but should let them seek redress from their own authorities. Lord Carnarvon can bardly subscribe to this view. The Chinese traders of Hong Kong, as a matter of fact, do not obtain redress from their own authorities, and his Lordship considers that the interests of the Colony are seriously involved in the present controversy, and that any neglect on the part of its Government to maintain in force what are considered to be its necessary and just rights, is calculated to embolden the Cantonese officials and invite further aggressions on their part.

5. The remarks of Sir Brooke Robertson on the three recent instances of alleged illegal seizure, reported in Mr. Austin's despatch No. 66 of the 9th of June, do not appear to Lord Carnarvon to deal with these complaints as satisfactorily as could have been desired, as regards the first two cases, though they dispose of all ground of objection as regards the third; and his Lordship proposes to call for some explanation in reference to the charge of torture in the last case, which seems to be entirely disproved.

6. The Return of Imports inclosed in the Consul's despatch merely shows the shipments of Manchester goods from England to Kong Kong. That they are on the increase is no doubt a matter of congratulation; but I am to observe that a large portion of those goods is transshipped in Hong Kong for the various Treaty-Ports in China and Japan, and, in many cases, the goods are not even landed in the Colony, but proceed in the same steamer to their ultimate destination. I am to point out also, that Manchester

• Printed correspondence, pp. 35, 36.

+ lbid.

Report of Commission, par. 11.

Printed correspondence, p. 8.

Printed correspondence, p. 47.

Case of the "Kum Hop Sing," printed correspondence, p. 20.

Report of Commission, pars, 15 and 19

(printed correspondence, p. 9). Memorial of Chamber of Commerce, par. 8 (printed correspondence, p. 18).

Statement of owner of junk (printed correspondence, p. 23).

Report of Commission, printed correspondence, p. 8, par. 13.

23

goods do not appear to form part of the merchandize shipped in the class of nativ vessels which are subjected to the proceedings complained of, for it will be found upo examination of the numerous cases of seizures which have taken place, that the carg carried in the junks captured consisted of raw cotton, opium, tea, sugar, rice, vermicelli, salt, saltpetre, camphor, coals, linens, Singapore wood and other timber, crockery wares and sundries of that description, but that no Manchester cottons or cotton yarns were ever found on board.

This Manchester Trade Return, therefore, can hardly be considered to touch the question under consideration.

7. With reference to Sir Brooke Robertson's suggestion that an English officer from the Canton Foreign Inspectorate should be appointed to reside in Hong Kong, who should be invested with certain powers as regards the issue and collection of receipts for Chinese Customs duties, and the discussion with the Hong Kong Government of cases of alleged illegal seizure. Lord Carnarvon will be glad to propose this for the consideration of the Colonial Government, as an alternative which would be comparatively free from the objections urged against the appointment of a Chinese Consul in the Colony.

8. The issue of licenses under the seals of the Hong Kong Government and of the Hoppo to junks trading with the Colony, which Sir Brooke Robertson recommends in conjunction with this scheme, appears to Lord Carnarvon to be undesirable, and, indeed, unnecessary, if the only purpose be that of identification, as such junks may now obtain Colonial Licenses under Section 26 of the Hong Kong "Harbour and Coasts Ordinance, 1866;" and Lord Carnarvon would remark that, whether the functionary to be appointed be an Englishman or a Chinese, the scheme must necessarily fail if the Hoppo should persist in refusing to give publicity to the Tariff of Native Customs.

9. In the letter from this Department of the 9th August last, a copy of which was also transmitted by Lord Derby to Sir Brooke Robertson, Lord Carnarvon urged the expediency of proposing for the acceptance of the Chinese Government certain terms of arrangement suggested by Sir Arthur Kennedy. These were, firstly, the suppression of all revenue cruizers except those under the immediate authority of the Hoppo; secondly, the publication of the Chinese Tariff and Customs Regulations; and, thirdly, the appointment of a joint Board to sit at Hong Kong or Chinese Kowlong to investigate cases of alleged illegal seizure. These proposals appear to Lord Carnarvon most reasonable.

Her Majesty's Consul, however, states in reply, firstly, that the Cantonese authorities will not put their sailing cruizers under the foreign inspectorate, "because the duties to be collected are not of Treaty tariff kind, but Chinese," and he thinks that "the pro- bable reason is that they manage their own matters their own way, and do not care for foreign supervision."

10. Sir Arthur Kennedy did not ask that sailing vessels should be put under the foreign inspectorate (though this, no doubt, would be a great boon), but that they should all be placed under the immediate control and supervision of the Hoppo, or some other responsible authority. With respect to the publication of the Native Tariff and Regula tions, Sir Brooke Robertson reports that the Hoppo positively declines to furnish them, and as regards the suggestion of a mixed Board, which should sit either in Hong Kong or Chinese Kowlong for the investigation of cases of alleged illegal seizure, he states that in his opinion such an arrangement would be impracticable, but suggests the appointment of an officer of the Foreign Inspectorate to "discuss" these questions with the Hong Kong Government.

11. Lord Carnarvon fears much from the general tenor of Sir Brooke Robertson's despatch that there will be great difficulty in obtaining the assent of the Cantonese officials to any practical measures for restraining the abuses complained of, or facilitating their exposure; and his Lordship is, therefore, disposed to concur in the views expressed by the Acting-Governor of Hong Kong in a further despatch, of which I am desired to inclose a copy for the consideration of Lord Derby, in which it is urged that, for the reasons stated in paragraph 5, the Chinese revenue cruizers of all classes should be excluded from the waters of the Colony.

Lord

12. On this point I am to request that you will refer Lord Derby to the 2nd Resolu- tion passed at the public meeting held in the Colony on the 14th of September, 1874,† and to paragraph 6 of the Memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Hong Kong.‡ Derby will remember that in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, conveyed in your letter of the 26th October, 1874, the Governor of Hong Kong was instructed to prevent the passage of military transports of the Chinese Government

* No. 155, of November 16, No. 10.

+ Printed correspondence, p. 31.

+ Ibid., p. 13.