CO129-134 - Public Offices - 1868 — Page 522

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

...........

the

diplomatic authorities

far

A

they are

wrong!

it is not easy to do with due

regard

514

Proclamation the doubtless, issued

with the above,

La

its Language

and thus

far

depended

to the Foreign Office. It appears

the best

the

7.0.

ca

that

to me that would be to write a letter, observing that

no doubt the Treaty of Tientsin only applied to the British Trade at Treaty Ports, & not to Chinese Trade or to other Ports; – that the Chinese were therefore at liberty to take the precautions which they had taken against smuggling by any person whatever into non-Treaty Ports, to

that it does not

interfere with British Trade at the Treaty Ports, that

His Grace resolved

to

to the establishment in Hongkong

agency for delivering

of

certificates, and that

while

capped

went too

far as the

force of the Viceroy's explanation

A

few words, which

but the

appeared not to have been used by the Viceroy,

are

it

the nature

of

and

that

open

to

interpreters' gloss

appeared to

some question whether, under the succession of Treaties which regulate this question, the Chinese Customs could properly impose duty on opium, being "British merchandise " (Treaty of Nanking, Art X. See _Treaties_ , Fol II, p. 224) and being an import at a

Treaty Port,

then the Likin may

be a

certain

Chinese Transit duty, any greater duty

than is

agreed

by the Treaty

at the rights of Tientsin, Art XXIII, and the

Tariff

contained

in it

if this

there

and

steps affected seriously that part of the community of Hongkong who

were

engaged

in contraband trade, this was

in consequence

of

an incident to which persons who exist by unlawful proceedings

must be liable.

On the other hand that the

agreement of Nov 8th 1858 (See _Treaties_ , pp. 91, 97)

in as open a manner

a clearer statement on this

head is in justice to British Traders required:

for it is

explained

by

M. Robertson's letters that he

anticipated objections

to this Govt.

of Hongkong

it appeared to H. E. unfortunate

that he did not ascertain the

Edit History

2026-05-19 23:27:08 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
........... the diplomatic authorities far A they are wrong! it is not easy to do with due regard 514 Proclamation the doubtless, issued with the above, La its Language and thus far depended to the Foreign Office. It appears the best the 7.0. ca that to me that would be to write a letter, observing that no doubt the Treaty of Tientsin only applied to the British Trade at Treaty Ports, & not to Chinese Trade or to other Ports; that the Chinese were therefore at liberty to take the precautions which they had taken against smuggling by any person whatever into non-Treaty Ports, to that it does not interfere with British Trade at the Treaty Ports, that His Grace resolved to to the establishment in Hongkong agency for delivering of certificates, and that while capped went too far as the force of the Viceroy's explanation A few words, which but the appeared not to have been used by the Viceroy, are it the nature of and that open to interpreters' gloss appeared to some question whether, under the succession of Treaties which regulate this question, the Chinese Customs could properly impose duty on opium, being "British merchandise " (Treaty of Nanking, Art X. See _Treaties_ , Fol II, p. 224) and being an import at a Treaty Port, then the Likin may be a certain Chinese Transit duty, any greater duty than is agreed by the Treaty at the rights of Tientsin, Art XXIII, and the Tariff contained in it if this there and steps affected seriously that part of the community of Hongkong who were engaged in contraband trade, this was in consequence of an incident to which persons who exist by unlawful proceedings must be liable. On the other hand that the agreement of Nov 8th 1858 (See _Treaties_ , pp. 91, 97) in as open a manner a clearer statement on this head is in justice to British Traders required: for it is explained by M. Robertson's letters that he anticipated objections to this Govt. of Hongkong it appeared to H. E. unfortunate that he did not ascertain the
Baseline (Original)
........... the diplomatic authorities far A they are wrong! it is not easy to do with due regard 514 Proclamation the doubtless, issued with the above, La its Langugh > and thus far depended to the Forriges office. It appears the best the 7.0. ca that to me that would be to write t letter, observing that way no doubt the Treaty of Funtain only applied to the British Frade to Treaty Parts, & not to Chinese, Trade or to other Ports; that the Chinese were therefore at liberty to take the precautions which they had taken against smuggling by any person what : ever into non. Treaty Ports, to that it does not interfere with British Trade at the Treaty Ports, that ompetion His Grace rosu daw to to the establishment in Hongkong agency for deliverin of ar certificates, and that abinetin while cappeds went too What as the force of the Viceroy's explanation ov A few words, which but th. appeared not to have been used by the Viceroy, an it the nature. of and that open to interpreters gloss appeared to 4.6. some question whether, under the succession of Treaties which regulate this question, the Cheusix Cost could properly imposs ou opium, bring "British merchandige " (Treaty of Mankin, Art X. Sertolet Fol II, p. 224) and being an in a on ito Freaty Port, then the Lekin may to a corn Chiness Testal, any greater duty than is agreed by the Treaty at the rights of Ferntain, Art XXIII, and the the Bestil uchent in I respect htth contained if thes there and steps affected seriously that part of the community of stong Kong who cvere engaged traband trade, this was in con arr incident to which persons who Exist by unlawful proceedings must be liable. On the other hand that the agresment of Nod 8th 1858 (Sertoled Fol$ pp. 91,97) in As openson a clearer statement on thir roped head is in justice to Britook in explicitly Traders required: ton it is ergized 5 V.dis Explanatio That, as Vali i fun as it appears frond M. anticipated abpretions grani IN. Robertson's letters that he erasure s to this God. of Hongkong it appeared to It. G. unfortunate that he did not ascertains the
2026-05-19 23:27:08 · Baseline
View content

...........

the

diplomatic authorities

far

A

they are

wrong!

it is not easy to do with due

regard

514

Proclamation the doubtless, issued

with the above,

La

its Langugh

>

and thus

far

depended

to the Forriges office. It appears

the best

the

7.0.

ca

that

to me that would be to write t letter, observing that

way

no doubt the Treaty of Funtain only applied to the British Frade to Treaty Parts, & not to Chinese, Trade or to other Ports; – that the Chinese were therefore at liberty to take the precautions which they had taken against smuggling by any person what : ever into non. Treaty Ports, to

that it does not

interfere with British Trade at the Treaty Ports, that

ompetion

His Grace rosu

daw to

to the establishment in Hongkong

agency for deliverin

of

ar

certificates, and that

abinetin

while

cappeds

went too

What as the

force of the Viceroy's explanation

ov

A

few words, which

but th.

appeared not to have been used by the Viceroy,

an

it

the nature.

of

and

that

open

to

interpreters gloss

appeared to 4.6.

some question whether, under the succession of Treaties which regulate this question, the Cheusix Cost could properly imposs ou opium, bring "British merchandige " (Treaty of

Mankin, Art X. Sertolet Fol II, p. 224) and being an in a

on ito Freaty Port,

then the Lekin may

to a

corn

Chiness Testal, any greater duty

than is

agreed

by the Treaty

at the rights of Ferntain, Art XXIII, and the

the Bestil

uchent in I respect

htth contained

if thes

there

and

steps affected seriously that part of the community of stong

Kong who

cvere

engaged

traband trade, this was

in con

arr

incident to which persons who Exist by unlawful proceedings

must be liable.

On the other hand that the

agresment of Nod 8th 1858 (Sertoled Fol$ pp. 91,97)

in As openson

a clearer statement on thir

roped head is in justice to Britook in explicitly Traders required:

ton it is

ergized 5 V.dis Explanatio

That, as

Vali i fun

as it appears frond

M. anticipated abpretions grani

IN. Robertson's letters that he

erasure

s to this God.

of Hongkong

it appeared to It. G. unfortunate

that he did not ascertains the

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.