CO129-134 - Public Offices - 1868 — Page 464

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

456

128

exclusively insisted on in all the Memorials about the revision of the Treaty as sole objects of interest or solicitude.

Whether transit dues can be honestly collected according to Treaty, and merchants transport freely their goods to central markets, or Chinese produce tea and silk without exactions to the ports from the places of growth,-whether they can reside in the interior and purchase or sell there, dealing only with first hands,--may be questions of deep interest; but it is surely a mistake to hold up such privileges or facilities as the sole conditions necessary to ensure a profitable and large development of trade. There are underlying all these more superficial and specious advantages far deeper and more influential causes of success or failure which it behoves merchants and Governments alike to keep steadily in view in any efforts to improve the conditions under which trade has to be maintained and developed. I think nothing can more clearly demonstrate this than another article (herewith inclosed) in the same number of the Supreme Court Gazette," written with the object of holding up to censure the policy of the British Government. The writer institutes a comparison between the position occupied by British merchants and their trade in China, and the Russian, to the disadvantage of the former; insisting much upon the identity of character in the British and Russian Treaties, and laying the whole blame on the narrow or false interpretation given by the British authorities to the several Articles containing stipulations for privileges in the interior, right of residence, &c.; and yet, by his own showing, the essential difference lies not in the Treaties but in the merchants. The Russians, in many places, conduct their business in the interior by Russianized Chinese, and evidence is cited of the numbers of Russian-speaking Chinese, while the merchants themselves have the "ability of working more directly with the Chinese (tea) growers," having made themselves acquainted with the language and customs of the people amongst whom they reside, and, in some instances, have taken to their style of dress and living. When British merchants have so fitted themselves for residence in the interior, they may, doubtless, reap equal advantages; but until then no Treaty privileges will place them on the same footing as those who have.

In this connection, Mr. Robertson's observations as to the practical bearing of any right of residence in the silk-producing districts, and the probably disadvantageous results attending it, are well worthy of attention. In a similar sense are the observations communicated by merchants at Foo-chow to the Consul of that port, and embodied in his recent answer to my circular No. 4 of the 21st of March, where all right of residence and access to the interior for purposes of trade is depreciated as sure to entail difficulties and loss on the merchants.

Of the intimate connection of the Colonies of Hong Kong and of Macao, but of the former more especially, with the trade of Canton, and the many conflicting interests involved in such interdependence, there is much to be said. Mr. Robertson touches upon a few of these points only in this Report, while in a subsequent despatch herewith inclosed, he draws my attention to a proposal to make the British Colony for all practical purposes a Treaty port, by permitting duty-paid goods to be transhipped there under the same regulation as in any of the Chinese ports. The Memorialists at Hong Kong brought forward a similar proposal.

It would be premature to pronounce any definite opinion on so large a question, which necessarily demands very careful investigation both as to the practicability and the expediency of the measure proposed. In the meantime I may observe, that a more liberal policy as regards Hong Kong would, on the whole, increase trade at Canton. But to concede the certificate point, and recognize an in-transit-for-Canton clearance to Hong Kong, would have the effect of killing all but river-steamer trade to Canton. It would probably make Hong Kong the great emporium of the South, while at present it is little more than an immense smuggling depôt, as Gibraltar is to Spain. There is little reason, however, to think the Chinese will grant the privilege asked; since while it would white-wash the Colony, and give it a respectable name, it must at the same time increase its power, already too sorely felt, of damaging the Chinese revenue.

I have, &c. (Signed)

RUTHERFORD ALCOCK.

Page 129

which I conceive will effect some good results, or, at all events, open a door for development in some shape, and generally be beneficial to foreign interests.

I may begin by stating that, although restrictive in some respects, the foreign Customs Establishment has equalized the trade, and placed the collection of the revenue on a basis of fairness which did not exist before its establishment, and, therefore, deserves well of the foreign mercantile body; and if to its other benefits it would add encouragement to trade, it would deserve still more. For instance, there would have been no difficulty in establishing a system of bonded warehouse at Canton. Two years ago I prepared a scheme, and submitted it to the high authorities, and spoke to the Commissioner of Customs on the subject, but nothing came of it. Had my advice, however, been followed, and it was not given without having first taken opinions from the leading foreign merchants,-I have no doubt the trade and revenue of the port would have been doubled. Whether or not it is now too late is another question.

Again,-and it is to this subject I beg to draw your attention,-Hong Kong being British territory is a foreign port, and goods and merchandise imported therefrom into China pay Tariff import duties; for instance, if cargo is sent from Shanghae to Hong Kong, it pays the full export duty, and, if forwarded on to Canton, it pays the full import duty but if sent from Shanghae to Canton direct, it pays at the former export, and at the latter port coast-trade, which is half the import, duty. Steamers or vessels can call at Hong Kong en route without invalidating this, but the cargo cannot be transhipped, or landed, or touched.

Now there is a large and valuable carrying trade, chiefly Chinese produce, between Canton, Shanghae, and Tien-tsin, and steamers come up to load and clear for the latter ports, thereby taking the benefit of the coast-trade duty; but the regulation of not permitting the cargo to be moved somewhat cripples the trade. Frequently vessels can get only half a lading, or even less; and the result is, few come "seeking," as it is called, and the rule is for a Chinese firm to charter and take the risk; and this is a speculation they are unwilling to enter upon until they have secured a cargo.

It appears to me this rule might be with great benefit, both to foreign and Chinese merchants, and the revenue, relaxed, and cargo allowed to be transhipped or landed at Hong Kong. It would then be sent down by the river-steamers, and forwarded on by the coast ones; and owing to this facility, more would be sent than at present, when sometimes two and three months elapse without a steamer coming into port: for in all matters of trade celerity is the life and soul of it.

I have mooted this subject to the Customs authorities, but of course nothing could be done in it here. The objections urged are: the packages, if allowed to be landed or transhipped, might be tampered with or others substituted. To this I answer, let each package bear the Customs seal, and let the bills of lading be stamped at the Custom-house; and if the packages at the port of entry appear to have been opened, or do not agree with the documents, then of course they are liable to seizure and confiscation.

Moreover, the time has now passed since people thought it the right thing and clever to do the Customs. That was the result of the loose system which prevailed previous to the establishment of the foreign Customs, and arose as much from a spirit of opposition as anything else; but all this changed, and merchants find that it saves trouble and expense to follow regulations.

I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties in the way of this arrangement, but if there are I do not at present see them; and I am convinced of the benefits that would result from so important a concession in increasing the trade of the port, and giving a large amount of freight to the river and coast steamers.

I submit these observations with great deference to your Excellency's better judgment.

Your, &c.

(Signed) D. B. ROBERTSON,

Consul Robertson to Sir R. Alcock.

Canton, May 1, 1868.

FOREIGN trade at this port is in so depressed a state, if not passing entirely into Chinese hands, that I am tempted to submit, for your Excellency's consideration, a plan

Edit History

2026-05-19 23:19:08 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

456 128 exclusively insisted on in all the Memorials about the revision of the Treaty as sole objects of interest or solicitude. Whether transit dues can be honestly collected according to Treaty, and merchants transport freely their goods to central markets, or Chinese produce tea and silk without exactions to the ports from the places of growth,-whether they can reside in the interior and purchase or sell there, dealing only with first hands,--may be questions of deep interest; but it is surely a mistake to hold up such privileges or facilities as the sole conditions necessary to ensure a profitable and large development of trade. There are underlying all these more superficial and specious advantages far deeper and more influential causes of success or failure which it behoves merchants and Governments alike to keep steadily in view in any efforts to improve the conditions under which trade has to be maintained and developed. I think nothing can more clearly demonstrate this than another article (herewith inclosed) in the same number of the Supreme Court Gazette," written with the object of holding up to censure the policy of the British Government. The writer institutes a comparison between the position occupied by British merchants and their trade in China, and the Russian, to the disadvantage of the former; insisting much upon the identity of character in the British and Russian Treaties, and laying the whole blame on the narrow or false interpretation given by the British authorities to the several Articles containing stipulations for privileges in the interior, right of residence, &c.; and yet, by his own showing, the essential difference lies not in the Treaties but in the merchants. The Russians, in many places, conduct their business in the interior by Russianized Chinese, and evidence is cited of the numbers of Russian-speaking Chinese, while the merchants themselves have the "ability of working more directly with the Chinese (tea) growers," having made themselves acquainted with the language and customs of the people amongst whom they reside, and, in some instances, have taken to their style of dress and living. When British merchants have so fitted themselves for residence in the interior, they may, doubtless, reap equal advantages; but until then no Treaty privileges will place them on the same footing as those who have. In this connection, Mr. Robertson's observations as to the practical bearing of any right of residence in the silk-producing districts, and the probably disadvantageous results attending it, are well worthy of attention. In a similar sense are the observations communicated by merchants at Foo-chow to the Consul of that port, and embodied in his recent answer to my circular No. 4 of the 21st of March, where all right of residence and access to the interior for purposes of trade is depreciated as sure to entail difficulties and loss on the merchants. Of the intimate connection of the Colonies of Hong Kong and of Macao, but of the former more especially, with the trade of Canton, and the many conflicting interests involved in such interdependence, there is much to be said. Mr. Robertson touches upon a few of these points only in this Report, while in a subsequent despatch herewith inclosed, he draws my attention to a proposal to make the British Colony for all practical purposes a Treaty port, by permitting duty-paid goods to be transhipped there under the same regulation as in any of the Chinese ports. The Memorialists at Hong Kong brought forward a similar proposal. It would be premature to pronounce any definite opinion on so large a question, which necessarily demands very careful investigation both as to the practicability and the expediency of the measure proposed. In the meantime I may observe, that a more liberal policy as regards Hong Kong would, on the whole, increase trade at Canton. But to concede the certificate point, and recognize an in-transit-for-Canton clearance to Hong Kong, would have the effect of killing all but river-steamer trade to Canton. It would probably make Hong Kong the great emporium of the South, while at present it is little more than an immense smuggling depôt, as Gibraltar is to Spain. There is little reason, however, to think the Chinese will grant the privilege asked; since while it would white-wash the Colony, and give it a respectable name, it must at the same time increase its power, already too sorely felt, of damaging the Chinese revenue. I have, &c. (Signed) RUTHERFORD ALCOCK. Page 129 which I conceive will effect some good results, or, at all events, open a door for development in some shape, and generally be beneficial to foreign interests. I may begin by stating that, although restrictive in some respects, the foreign Customs Establishment has equalized the trade, and placed the collection of the revenue on a basis of fairness which did not exist before its establishment, and, therefore, deserves well of the foreign mercantile body; and if to its other benefits it would add encouragement to trade, it would deserve still more. For instance, there would have been no difficulty in establishing a system of bonded warehouse at Canton. Two years ago I prepared a scheme, and submitted it to the high authorities, and spoke to the Commissioner of Customs on the subject, but nothing came of it. Had my advice, however, been followed, and it was not given without having first taken opinions from the leading foreign merchants,-I have no doubt the trade and revenue of the port would have been doubled. Whether or not it is now too late is another question. Again,-and it is to this subject I beg to draw your attention,-Hong Kong being British territory is a foreign port, and goods and merchandise imported therefrom into China pay Tariff import duties; for instance, if cargo is sent from Shanghae to Hong Kong, it pays the full export duty, and, if forwarded on to Canton, it pays the full import duty but if sent from Shanghae to Canton direct, it pays at the former export, and at the latter port coast-trade, which is half the import, duty. Steamers or vessels can call at Hong Kong en route without invalidating this, but the cargo cannot be transhipped, or landed, or touched. Now there is a large and valuable carrying trade, chiefly Chinese produce, between Canton, Shanghae, and Tien-tsin, and steamers come up to load and clear for the latter ports, thereby taking the benefit of the coast-trade duty; but the regulation of not permitting the cargo to be moved somewhat cripples the trade. Frequently vessels can get only half a lading, or even less; and the result is, few come "seeking," as it is called, and the rule is for a Chinese firm to charter and take the risk; and this is a speculation they are unwilling to enter upon until they have secured a cargo. It appears to me this rule might be with great benefit, both to foreign and Chinese merchants, and the revenue, relaxed, and cargo allowed to be transhipped or landed at Hong Kong. It would then be sent down by the river-steamers, and forwarded on by the coast ones; and owing to this facility, more would be sent than at present, when sometimes two and three months elapse without a steamer coming into port: for in all matters of trade celerity is the life and soul of it. I have mooted this subject to the Customs authorities, but of course nothing could be done in it here. The objections urged are: the packages, if allowed to be landed or transhipped, might be tampered with or others substituted. To this I answer, let each package bear the Customs seal, and let the bills of lading be stamped at the Custom-house; and if the packages at the port of entry appear to have been opened, or do not agree with the documents, then of course they are liable to seizure and confiscation. Moreover, the time has now passed since people thought it the right thing and clever to do the Customs. That was the result of the loose system which prevailed previous to the establishment of the foreign Customs, and arose as much from a spirit of opposition as anything else; but all this changed, and merchants find that it saves trouble and expense to follow regulations. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties in the way of this arrangement, but if there are I do not at present see them; and I am convinced of the benefits that would result from so important a concession in increasing the trade of the port, and giving a large amount of freight to the river and coast steamers. I submit these observations with great deference to your Excellency's better judgment. Your, &c. (Signed) D. B. ROBERTSON, Consul Robertson to Sir R. Alcock. Canton, May 1, 1868. FOREIGN trade at this port is in so depressed a state, if not passing entirely into Chinese hands, that I am tempted to submit, for your Excellency's consideration, a plan

Baseline (Original)

456 128 exclusively insisted on in all the Memorials about the revision of the Treaty as sole objects of interest or solicitude. Whether transit dues can be honestly collected according to Treaty, and merchants transport freely their goods to central markets, or Chinese produce tea and silk without exactions to the ports from the places of growth,-whether they can reside in the interior and purchase or sell there, dealing only with first hands,--may be questions of deep interest; but it is surely a mistake to hold up such privileges or facilities as the sole conditions necessary to ensure a profitable and large development of trade. There are underlying all these more superficial and specious advantages far deeper and more infiuential causes of success or failure which it behoves merchants and Governments alike to keep steadily in view in any efforts to improve the conditions under which trade has to be maintained and developed. I think nothing can more clearly demonstrate this than another article (herewith inclosed) in the same number of the Supreme Court Gazette," written with the object of holding up to censure the policy of the British Government. The writer institutes a comparison between the position occupied by British merchants and their trade in China, and the Russian, to the disadvantage of the former; insisting much upon the identity of character in the British and Russian Treaties, and laying the whole blame on the narrow or false interpretation given by the British authorities to the several Articles containing stipulations for privileges in the interior, right of residence, &c.; and yet, by his own showing, the essential difference lies not in the Treaties but in the merchants. The Russians, in many places, conduct their business in the interior by Russianized Chinese, and evidence is cited of the numbers of Russian-speaking Chinese, while the merchants themselves have the "ability of working more directly with the Chinese (tea) growers," having made themselves acquainted with the language and customs of the people amongst whom they reside, and, in some instances, have taken to their style of dress and living. When British merchants have so fitted themselves for residence in the interior, they may, doubtless, reap equal advantages; but until then no Treaty privileges will place them on the same footing as those who have. In this connection, Mr. Robertson's observations as to the practical bearing of any right of residence in the silk-producing districts, and the probably disadvantageous results attending it, are well worthy of attention. In a similar sense are the observations com- municated by merchants at Foo-chow to the Consul of that port, and embodied in his recent answer to my circular No. 4 of the 21st of March, where all right of residence and access to the interior for purposes of trade is depreciated as sure to entail difficulties and loss on the merchants. Of the intimate connection of the Colonies of Hong Kong and of Macao, but of the former more especially, with the trade of Canton, and the many conflicting interests involved in such interdependence, there is much to be said. Mr. Robertson touches upon a few of these points only in this Report, while in a subsequent despatch herewith inclosed, he draws my attention to a proposal to make the British Colony for all practical purposes a Treaty port, by permitting duty-paid goods to be transhipped there under the same regulation as in any of the Chinese ports. The Memorialists at Hong Kong brought forward a similar proposal. It would be premature to pronounce any definite opinion on so large a question, which necessarily demands very careful investigation both as to the practicability and the expediency of the measure proposed. In the meantime I may observe, that a more liberal policy as regards Hong Kong would, on the whole, increase trade at Canton. But to concede the certificate point, and recognize an in-transit-for-Canton clearance to Hong Kong, would have the effect of killing all but river-steamer trade to Canton. It would probably make Hong Kong the great emporium of the South, while at present it is little inore than an immense smuggling depôt, as Gibraltar is to Spain. There is little reason, however, to think the Chinese will grant the privilege asked; since while it would white- wash the Colony, and give it a respectable name, it must at the same time increase its power, already too sorely felt, of damaging the Chinese revenue. I have, &c. (Signed) Inclosure in No. 53. RUTHERFORD ALCOCK. T In # 129 which I conceive will effect some good results, or, at all events, open a door for develop- ment in some shape, and generally be beneficial to foreign interests. I may begin by stating that, although restrictive in some respects, the foreign Customs Establishment has equalized the trade, and placed the collection of the revenue on a basis of fairness which did not exist before its establishment, and, therefore, deserves well of the foreign mercantile body; and if to its other benefits it would add encourage- ment to trade, it would deserve still more. For instance, there would have been no difficulty in establishing a system of bonded warehouse at Canton. Two years ago prepared a scheme, and submitted it to the high authorities, and spoke to the Commis- sioner of Customs on the subject, but nothing came of it. Had my advice, however, been followed, and it was not given without having first taken opinions from the leading foreign merchants,-I have no doubt the trade and revenue of the port would have been doubled. Whether or not it is now too late is another question. Again,-and it is to this subject I beg to draw your attention,-Hong Kong being British territory is a foreign port, and goods and merchandize imported therefrom into China pay Tariff import duties; for instance, if cargo is sent from Shanghae to Hong Kong, it pays the full export duty, and, if forwarded on to Canton, it pays the full import duty but if sent from Shanghae to Canton direct, it pays at the former export, and at the latter port coast-trade, which is half the import, duty. Steamers or vessels can call at Hong Kong en route without invalidating this, but the cargo cannot be transhipped, or landed, or touched. Now there is a large and valuable carrying trade, chiefly Chinese produce, between Canton, Shanghae, and Tien-tsin, and steamers come up to load and clear for the latter ports, thereby taking the benefit of the coast-trade duty; but the regulation of not permitting the cargo to be moved somewhat cripples the trade. Frequently vessels can get only half a lading, or even less; and the result is, few come "seeking," as it is called, and the rule is for a Chinese firm to charter and take the risk; and this is a speculation they are unwilling to enter upon until they have secured a cargo. It appears to me this rule might be with great benefit, both to foreign and Chinese merchants, and the revenue, relaxed, and cargo allowed to be transhipped or landed at Hong Kong. It would then be sent down by the river-steamers, and forwarded on by the coast ones; and owing to this facility, more would be sent than at present, when sometimes two and three months clapse without a steamer coming into port: for in all matters of trade celerity is the life and soul of it. I have mooted this subject to the Customs authorities, but of course nothing could be done in it here. The objections urged are: the packages, if allowed to be landed or transhipped, might be tampered with or others substituted. To this I answer, let each package bear the Customs seal, and let the bills of lading be stamped at the Custom- house; and if the packages at the port of entry appear to have been opened, or do not agree with the documents, then of course they are liable to seizure and confiscation. Moreover, the time has now passed since people thought it the right thing and clever to do the Customs. That was the result of the loose system which prevailed previous to the establishment of the foreign Customs, and arose as much from a spirit of opposition as anything else; but all this changed, and merchants find that it saves trouble and expense to follow regulations. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties in the way of this arrangement, but if there are I do not at present see them; and I am convinced of the benefits that would result from so important a concession in increasing the trade of the port, and giving a large amount of freight to the river and coast steamers. I submit these observations with great deference to your Excellency's better judgment. Your, &c. (Signed) D. B. ROBERTSON, Sir, Consul Robertson to Sir R. Alcock. Canton, May 1, 1868. FOREIGN trade at this port is in so depressed a state, if not passing entirely into Chinese hands, that I am tempted to submit, for your Excellency's consideration, a plan #

2026-05-19 23:19:08 · Baseline

View content

456

128

exclusively insisted on in all the Memorials about the revision of the Treaty as sole objects of interest or solicitude.

Whether transit dues can be honestly collected according to Treaty, and merchants transport freely their goods to central markets, or Chinese produce tea and silk without exactions to the ports from the places of growth,-whether they can reside in the interior and purchase or sell there, dealing only with first hands,--may be questions of deep interest; but it is surely a mistake to hold up such privileges or facilities as the sole conditions necessary to ensure a profitable and large development of trade. There are underlying all these more superficial and specious advantages far deeper and more infiuential causes of success or failure which it behoves merchants and Governments alike to keep steadily in view in any efforts to improve the conditions under which trade has to be maintained and developed. I think nothing can more clearly demonstrate this than another article (herewith inclosed) in the same number of the Supreme Court Gazette," written with the object of holding up to censure the policy of the British Government. The writer institutes a comparison between the position occupied by British merchants and their trade in China, and the Russian, to the disadvantage of the former; insisting much upon the identity of character in the British and Russian Treaties, and laying the whole blame on the narrow or false interpretation given by the British authorities to the several Articles containing stipulations for privileges in the interior, right of residence, &c.; and yet, by his own showing, the essential difference lies not in the Treaties but in the merchants. The Russians, in many places, conduct their business in the interior by Russianized Chinese, and evidence is cited of the numbers of Russian-speaking Chinese, while the merchants themselves have the "ability of working more directly with the Chinese (tea) growers," having made themselves acquainted with the language and customs of the people amongst whom they reside, and, in some instances, have taken to their style of dress and living. When British merchants have so fitted themselves for residence in the interior, they may, doubtless, reap equal advantages; but until then no Treaty privileges will place them on the same footing as those who have.

In this connection, Mr. Robertson's observations as to the practical bearing of any right of residence in the silk-producing districts, and the probably disadvantageous results attending it, are well worthy of attention. In a similar sense are the observations com- municated by merchants at Foo-chow to the Consul of that port, and embodied in his recent answer to my circular No. 4 of the 21st of March, where all right of residence and access to the interior for purposes of trade is depreciated as sure to entail difficulties and loss on the merchants.

It would be premature to pronounce any definite opinion on so large a question, which necessarily demands very careful investigation both as to the practicability and the expediency of the measure proposed. In the meantime I may observe, that a more liberal policy as regards Hong Kong would, on the whole, increase trade at Canton. But to concede the certificate point, and recognize an in-transit-for-Canton clearance to Hong Kong, would have the effect of killing all but river-steamer trade to Canton. It would probably make Hong Kong the great emporium of the South, while at present it is little inore than an immense smuggling depôt, as Gibraltar is to Spain. There is little reason, however, to think the Chinese will grant the privilege asked; since while it would white- wash the Colony, and give it a respectable name, it must at the same time increase its power, already too sorely felt, of damaging the Chinese revenue.

I have, &c. (Signed)

Inclosure in No. 53.

RUTHERFORD ALCOCK.

129

which I conceive will effect some good results, or, at all events, open a door for develop- ment in some shape, and generally be beneficial to foreign interests.

I may begin by stating that, although restrictive in some respects, the foreign Customs Establishment has equalized the trade, and placed the collection of the revenue on a basis of fairness which did not exist before its establishment, and, therefore, deserves well of the foreign mercantile body; and if to its other benefits it would add encourage- ment to trade, it would deserve still more. For instance, there would have been no difficulty in establishing a system of bonded warehouse at Canton. Two years ago prepared a scheme, and submitted it to the high authorities, and spoke to the Commis- sioner of Customs on the subject, but nothing came of it. Had my advice, however, been followed, and it was not given without having first taken opinions from the leading foreign merchants,-I have no doubt the trade and revenue of the port would have been doubled. Whether or not it is now too late is another question.

Again,-and it is to this subject I beg to draw your attention,-Hong Kong being British territory is a foreign port, and goods and merchandize imported therefrom into China pay Tariff import duties; for instance, if cargo is sent from Shanghae to Hong Kong, it pays the full export duty, and, if forwarded on to Canton, it pays the full import duty but if sent from Shanghae to Canton direct, it pays at the former export, and at the latter port coast-trade, which is half the import, duty. Steamers or vessels can call at Hong Kong en route without invalidating this, but the cargo cannot be transhipped, or landed, or touched.

It appears to me this rule might be with great benefit, both to foreign and Chinese merchants, and the revenue, relaxed, and cargo allowed to be transhipped or landed at Hong Kong. It would then be sent down by the river-steamers, and forwarded on by the coast ones; and owing to this facility, more would be sent than at present, when sometimes two and three months clapse without a steamer coming into port: for in all matters of trade celerity is the life and soul of it.

I have mooted this subject to the Customs authorities, but of course nothing could be done in it here. The objections urged are: the packages, if allowed to be landed or transhipped, might be tampered with or others substituted. To this I answer, let each package bear the Customs seal, and let the bills of lading be stamped at the Custom- house; and if the packages at the port of entry appear to have been opened, or do not agree with the documents, then of course they are liable to seizure and confiscation.