on to Foreign trade provision
was made by treaty.
The Consul stated in reply that the port, Kining Chow in Hainan had not been declared open
by the proper authorities & therefore
recognised. by
no other
him and a
Adver;
not be
a place for Foreign Trade.
been arrived, at no regards the
letter
It appears to me that the Consul could fully give but as a different conclusion has
regards the (pl. fort in gt under acknowledgement I propose referring the question to Mr. Principal Secretary of Foreign Affairs "for instructions. In the mean time as it is not desirable for the public interest that there should be
be any appearance of conflicting action between the Governor of a British Colony, a Chief Superintendent of
&
in a matter in which the Chinese Treaty rights are directly concerned, I
that no Brit. Vessels should be cleared out
for Kingstow
until the question at issue is definitively settled by instructions from home.
The Chinese fort cannot refuse trade if we are going to appoint a Consul but it
tells us that we are
right to
that we shall be quite justified in refusing to recognise our trade at a treaty Port
until we do send there an Officer duly qualified to exercise that control over Brit. Subjects which the territorial clause of the Treaty precluded them from exercising for their
protection. Upon
this ground
Especially I conceive
a Port should not be held legally open to Foreign Trade until a public notification appears from the competent Authorities declaring it to be so & such arrangement shall have been made
by the Chinese Authorities and
the Brit: &
combined, as much
needful to give effect
to the plain right of China to be protected from wrong doing or violence on the part of subjects frequenting the port.
I have &c.
(sd) R. Alcock
on to Foreign trade provision
was made by dreaty.
The Consul stated in reply that the port, kining chow in Haman had not been declared open
à proper authorities & therefore t
by the proper.
recognised. by
no other
him and a
Adver;
not be
a place for Foreign Trade.
been arrived, at no regards the
letter
It appears to me that the Consul cd filly give buit as a different conclusion has
regards the (pl. fort in gt under acknowledgement I propose referring the qucation to t. Mr. Principal Selch of Foreign Affaire "for instructions. In the mean time as it in not desirable for the public interest that there shit be.
be any appearance of conflicting action between the foor of a Brit: (clony, a #th. Chief Superintendent of
&
in a matter in 15h the Chinese & Treaty rights are directly concerned, Ind
that no Brit. Vessels she be cleared out
ર
Trade on China in a
their
suggest
for Kingstow
سنگی
tifone
Can be
how until the question at iss definitively settled by instructions from home.
The Chinese fort cannot refuse trade if we going to apponit a Consul but it
tell it we are
Leems to me
+1-24
right to
that it we be quite justified in refusing to recognise our trade at a treaty Port
-til we do send there an Officer duly qualified. to exercise that control over Brit. Subjects wh peterritorial clause of the Treaty they precluded from exercising for their
by
are
an
protectio
protection. Upon
this groma
from & more
334
Especially I conceive.
a Port shḥ not be held legally open to Foreign. Trade until a public notification appears from the competent Authorities declaring it to be so & such gement shall have been such prelimin
Chinese, Authorities be we
4་ཐོ
ade
by
the Brit:&
combined, as mach
reedful to give offect
Brit
to the plain right of Chinas to be protected from wrong doing or violence on the part of. subjects frequenting the port.
I have 25
(sd) R. Alerck
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.