154
in Britain and China to submit their views on the document. The Hongkong Chamber of Commerce responded with a memorial in 1870.
One of the items the chamber found objectionable was Article II. It stipulated that China might appoint consuls in all ports in British dominions.
The chamber admitted that for ports distant from China the provision was fair, but it should not apply to Hongkong. The port was peculiar and existed in a special relation to China. Nothing should be done that might endanger the dreams of its founders and the hopes of the memorialists.
They submitted that, "this Colony was originally established as an experiment, and the views of its founders have been fully realised by its progress and growth. . . Its geographical situation, and its magnificent harbour mark it as admirably adapted to become the emporium of foreign commerce in this part of the world, and the headquarters from which the large financial and commercial transactions of British and Foreign Merchants in China could best be carried out." Its location ensured its prosperity.
Success, however, may produce envy. The chamber believed that Hongkong's prosperity and its status as a free port “have long been regarded with jealous displeasure by the Chinese Government which has done all in its power to interfere with its trade, especially that carried on by native merchants settled in Hongkong."
The memorialists contended that China could not claim the diplomatic privileges of other nations because it did not qualify as a civilised country. China's capricious legal system disqualified it from acceptance within the community of nations.
In the opinion of the Hongkong merchants, all governments worthy of being recognised "find a common unity in their provisions for securing the life, the liberty and the property of all foreigners as well as natives.” This security is rooted in a dependable
154
in Britain and China to submit their views on the document. The Hongkong Chamber of Commerce responded with a memorial in 1870.
One of the items the chamber found objectionable was Article II. It stipulated that China might appoint consuls in all ports in British dominions.
The chamber admitted that for ports distant from China the provision was fair, but it should not apply to Hongkong. The port was peculiar and existed in a special relation to China. Nothing should be done that might endanger the dreams of its founders and the hopes of the memorialists.
They submitted that, "this Colony was originally established as an experiment, and the views of its founders have been fully realised by its progress and growth. . . Its geographical situa- tion, and its magnificent harbour mark it as admirably adapted to become the emporium of foreign commerce in this part of the world, and the headquarters from which the large financial and commercial transactions of British and Foreign Merchants in China could best be carried out." Its location ensured its prosper- ity.
Success, however, may produce envy. The chamber believed that Hongkong's prosperity and its status as a free port “have long been regarded with jealous displeasure by the Chinese Govern- ment which has done all in its power to interfere with its trade, especially that carried on by native merchants settled in Hongkong."
The memorialists contended that China could not claim the diplomatic privileges of other nations because it did not qualify as a civilised country. China's capricious legal system disqualified it from acceptance within the community of nations.
In the opinion of the Hongkong merchants, all governments worthy of being recognised "find a common unity in their provi- sions for securing the life, the liberty and the property of all for- eigners as well as natives.” This security is rooted in a dependable
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.