158
sent to Hongkong to inquire into the affair and in consequence the petitioners had gone into hiding.
In the petition, the Chinese merchants humbly requested Her Majesty to intercede for them with the Chinese Government in the case of the seizure of a junk called the Kum Hop Shing.
It had been stopped near the Lyemun Pass in January 1874, as it neared Hongkong from Taiwan.
When it could not produce a receipt bearing the "Grand Chop" for duties paid on its cargo, the junk was taken to Canton where it was sold at auction.
The Hongkong merchants interested in the affair held that no document with the "Grand Chop" was needed for goods coming to Hongkong from Taiwan.
They first appealed to the British Consul at Canton for redress. He told them the question must be referred to him through the Hongkong Government.
This then was done, but the final decision of the consul was that the Chinese were within their rights in seizing the vessel. This, of course, from the Hongkong view, was most unsatisfactory.
The petitioners firmly believed that the consul's decision was wrong and had only been made because he had been "cajoled by Canton authorities."
They claimed that the promise made by Captain Charles Elliot, the British Plenipotentiary for Trade in China, in a proclamation he issued in June 1841, was not being honoured. The document was entitled (they said) "An Invitation to Chinese Merchants."
The petitioners of 1874 regarded the 1841 proclamation as the constitutional foundation stone of their position in Hongkong.
Captain Charles Elliot had stated that "merchants and traders of Canton and all parts of the Empire... have free permission
158
sent to Hongkong to inquire into the affair and in consequence the petitioners had gone into hiding.
In the petition, the Chinese merchants humbly requested Her Majesty to intercede for them with the Chinese Government in the case of the seizure of a junk called the Kum Hop Shing.
It had been stopped near the Lyemun Pass in January 1874, as it neared Hongkong from Taiwan.
When it could not produce a receipt bearing the "Grand Chop” for duties paid on its cargo, the junk was taken to Canton where it was sold at auction.
The Hongkong merchants interested in the affair held that no document with the “Grand Chop" was needed for goods coming to Hongkong from Taiwan.
They first appealed to the British Consul at Canton for redress. He told them the question must be referred to him through the Hongkong Government.
This then was done, but the final decision of the consul was that the Chinese were within their rights in seizing the vessel. This, of course, from the Hongkong view, was most unsatisfactory.
The petitioners firmly believed that the consul's decision was wrong and had only been made because he had been “cajoled by Canton authorities.”
They claimed that the promise made by Captain Charles Elliot, the British Plenipotentiary for Trade in China, in a proclamation he issued in June 1841, was not being honoured. The document was entitled (they said) “An Invitation to Chinese Merchants."
The petitioners of 1874 regarded the 1841 proclamation as the constitutional foundation stone of their position in Hongkong.
Captain Charles Elliot had stated that "merchants and traders of Canton and all parts of the Empire... have free permission
!
i
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.