NOTES AND QUERIES
289
The conclusion of the matter is shown in F.O.228, v.654, p.146-152. In a letter to Sir Thomas Wade, written from Hong Kong on 28th Aug. 1880, Byron Brenan describes how he went to Canton "in obedience to your instructions", and finding the Governor General would not be available for two weeks owing to a death in the family, argued the case with the Superintendent of Customs. This did not go straightforwardly, and involved Brenan in a trip to Hoihow to obtain the receipts required as evidence that the sums had been paid as claimed. Eventually, however, he was able to obtain payment of $787.12 as the amount of tax in excess of what would have been due under the transit pass system, plus interest of $118.06, being 5% for three years, $905.18 in all. The last paper on the matter is a receipt for the refund, signed by Louis Jüdell, who is mentioned in Mr. Herton's letter to Mr. Keswick, in the capacity of his duly authorized attorney. It also appears from the covering letter of Acting Consul Scott that Mr. Ebell had severed his connection with the firm in August 1879.
The other letter to Mr. Keswick is less interesting, as it does not lead one into such a long paper chase (albeit on microfilm) through Foreign Office records. Nevertheless, it adds to the picture of problems faced by foreign merchants in China at that time. It reads as follows:
Hong Kong 12th March 1879
Dear Mr. Keswick,
In compliance with your request that I should give you a statement of the position of the Transit Pass Question at Pakhoi when I was at that port a month ago I beg to submit the following remarks.
I was informed that a proclamation was to be issued on the day I left the 21st Feb. authorizing the issue of passes for cloth, specifying linen and camlets, but the Commissioner stated that the word cloth would be construed liberally as to
NOTES AND QUERIES
289
The conclusion of the matter is shown in F.O. 228, v.654, p.146-152. In a letter to Sir Thomas Wade, written from Hong Kong on 28th Aug. 1880, Byron Brenan describes how he went to Canton "in obedience to your instructions", and finding the Governor General would not be available for two weeks owing to a death in the family, argued the case with the Superintendent of Customs. This did not go straightforwardly, and involved Brenan in a trip to Hoihow to obtain the receipts required as evidence that the sums had been paid as claimed. Eventually, however, he was able to obtain payment of $787.12 as the amount of tax in excess of what would have been due under the transit pass system, plus interest of $118.06, being 5% for three years, $905.18 in all. The last paper on the matter is a receipt for the refund, signed by Louis Jüdell, who is mentioned in Mr. Herton's letter to Mr. Keswick, in the capacity of his duly authorized attorney. It also appears from the covering letter of Acting Consul Scolt that Mr. Ebell had severed his connection with the firm in August 1879.
The other letter to Mr. Keswick is less interesting, as it does not lead one into such a long paper chase (albeit on microfilm) through Foreign Office records. Nevertheless, it adds to the picture of problems faced by foreign merchants in China at that time. It reads as follows:
Hong Kong 12th March 1879
Dear Mr. Keswick,
In compliance with your request that I should give you a statement of the position of the Transit Pass Question at Pakhoi when I was at that port a month ago I beg to submit the following remarks.
I was informed that a proclamation was to be issued on the day I left the 21st Feb. authorizing the issue of passes for cloth, specifying linen and camlets, but the Commissioner stated that the word cloth would be construed liberally as to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.