160
on the peaceful and forbearing policy of late years adopted by Your Majesty's Government towards China authority, have entered upon a course of open hostility to the trade of the Colony by causing trading junks proceeding to Hongkong to be overhauled and seized by Chinese war vessels; ostensibly for the purpose of collection or protecting the Imperial revenue, but really as your petitioners know, to injure the trade of this port and enrich themselves with the plunder so acquired; until emboldened by impunity, they have established a complete blockade of the harbour... so that every Chinese vessel proceeding to Hong-kong is liable to seizure, and many such junks are daily seized and taken to Canton ... to be there sold or confiscated.
The result was most harmful to Hongkong, for “the terrorism produced by such acts and the injury and oppression consequent thereon have inflicted the greatest detriment to the trade of the Colony and materially checked its progress."
In all the words and arguments issuing out of Hongkong, smuggling was seldom or never mentioned. But the status of Hongkong as a free port and the facilities it provided for contraband trade were the roots of the measures China took to protect its revenues. This both the Chinese and foreign merchants, who profited from the trade, were reluctant to admit publicly.
The foreign community supported the petition, but few believed it would produce the desired results. It was, however, one way to bring the attention of the Home Government to the situation in Hongkong. It was generally felt that the local Government was not taking a firm enough stand nor pressing its case with sufficient urgency.
The Chinese in their petition did not refer to the question of a Chinese consul in Hongkong. But a month after it was submitted, a public meeting was held to protest against the "blockade.” At this meeting, attended almost totally by foreigners, the matter of a Chinese consul in Hongkong was brought up.
160
on the peaceful and forbearing policy of late years adopted by Your Majesty's Government towards China authority, have en- tered upon a course of open hostility to the trade of the Colony by causing trading junks proceeding to Hongkong to be overhauled and seized by Chinese war vessels; ostensibly for the purpose of collection or protecting the Imperial revenue, but really as your petitioners know, to injure the trade of this port and enrich them- selves with the plunder so acquired; until emboldened by impuní- ty, they have established a complete blockade of the harbour... so that every Chinese vessel proceeding to Hong- kong is liable to seizure, and many such junks are daily seized and taken to Canton ... to be there sold or confiscated.
The result was most harmful to Hongkong, for “the terrorism produced by such acts and the injury and oppression consequent thereon have inflicted the greatest detriment to the trade of the Colony and materially checked its progress."
In all the words and arguments issuing out of Hongkong, smug- gling was seldom or never mentioned. But the status of Hongkong as a free port and the facilities it provided for contraband trade were the roots of the measures China took to protect its revenues. This both the Chinese and foreign merchants, who profited from the trade, were reluctant to admit publicly.
The foreign community supported the petition, but few be- lieved it would produce the desired results. It was, however, one way to bring the attention of the Home Government to the situa- tion in Hongkong. It was generally felt that the local Government was not taking a firm enough stand nor pressing its case with sufficient urgency.
The Chinese in their petition did not refer to the question of a Chinese consul in Hongkong. But a month after it was submitted, a public meeting was held to protest against the "blockade.” At this meeting, attended almost totally by foreigners, the matter of a Chinese consul in Hongkong was brought up.
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.