147
Hongkong opposed the request for two basic reasons. Any check to smuggling would deprive opium importers of substantial profits. This reason was seldom openly acknowledged. The other reason was frequently stated.
It was the ever-present fear that the Chinese population of Hongkong would be influenced or controlled by the officials in China and British prestige and sovereignty would be affected.
The dispatches, memorials and letters of the Hongkong Government, the General Chamber of Commerce, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the representatives of the Chinese Government, the British Consul at Canton, and the British Minister at Peking, as well as the editorials and correspondence in the local papers, such as the letter of Ho A-mei in 1891, point up the issues involved.
The matter was first raised in 1868. At that time, Prince Kung on behalf of the Chinese Government was discussing the revision of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin with the British Minister at Peking, Sir Rutherford Alcock.
The Prince asked Sir Rutherford if China would be permitted to station one of its officials in Hongkong to look after the collection of duties China levied on goods conveyed in junks from Hongkong to the mainland. Much revenue was slipping away because of the ease by which Hongkong exporters could evade the custom taxes. China wished to plug the leak. The simplest and least expensive method was to check it at its source.
Sir Rutherford thought that Britain should not permit a Chinese Government official to reside in Hongkong in any official capacity other than that of consul. This would bring his position in line with general diplomatic usage.
It was the practice for consuls of foreign nations to reside in British possessions to look after the interests of the country they represented.
The British Minister in Peking was aware that China had a real
147
Hongkong opposed the request for two basic reasons. Any check to smuggling would deprive opium importers of substantial profits. This reason was seldom openly acknowledged. The other reason was frequently stated.
It was the ever-present fear that the Chinese population of Hongkong would be influenced or controlled by the officials in China and British prestige and sovereignty would be affected.
The dispatches, memorials and letters of the Hongkong Government, the General Chamber of Commerce, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the representatives of the Chinese Government, the British Consul at Canton, and the British Minis- ter at Peking, as well as the editorials and correspondence in the local papers, such as the letter of Ho A-mei in 1891, point up the issues involved.
The matter was first raised in 1868. At that time, Prince Kung on behalf of the Chinese Government was discussing the revision of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin with the British Minister at Peking, Sir Rutherford Alcock.
The Prince asked Sir Rutherford if China would be permitted to station one of its officials in Hongkong to look after the collection of duties China levied on goods conveyed in junks from Hong- kong to the mainland. Much revenue was slipping away because of the ease by which Hongkong exporters could evade the custom taxes. China wished to plug the leak. The simplest and least expen- sive method was to check it at its source.
Sir Rutherford thought that Britain should not permit a Chi- nese Government official to reside in Hongkong in any official capacity than that of consul. This would bring his position in line with general diplomatic usage.
It was the practice for consuls of foreign nations to reside in British possessions to look after the interests of the country they represented.
The British Minister in Peking was aware that China had a real
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.