162
quainted with the state of trade between Hongkong and China.
Next he hit at the root of the problem. He bluntly stated that “a great many Chinese in Hongkong smuggled.”
His remark was not welcomed. Hongkong merchants were reluctant to look squarely at the source of the Colony's tensions with China.
Mr. Whittall next commented on statements made in the recent Chinese petition protesting against the seizure and confiscation of a junk by the customs officials. He claimed that contrary to the impression given in the petition, the junk had been engaged in smuggling and was not an innocent victim of rapacious Chinese officials.
This attitude towards the problem from the head of a firm, whose fortunes had been founded on the import of opium and its sales to smugglers, seemed out of character. By 1874, however, Jardine's had little to do with the opium trade but the firm's past associations led to an appreciation of the fact that many Chinese traders had either direct or indirect interests in smuggling.
Another factor influencing Mr. Whittall's tolerant views regarding the actions of China to protect its income was Jardine's efforts to win railway and other concessions from the Chinese Government. To do this the firm needed to keep on good terms with Chinese officials.
Yet still another factor in Mr. Whittall's position may have been his relation to the local Government. He may have agreed to act as its spokesman at the meeting.
There were other occasions when he was charged with being the Government's mouthpiece, rather than the people's voice as an unofficial member of the Legislative Council.
Mr. Whittall suggested that if the initial request of the Chinese for a consul to supervise duty regulations had been granted, the present conditions would not have arisen. He acknowledged that
162
quainted with the state of trade between Hongkong and China.
Next he hit at the root of the problem. He bluntly stated that “a great many Chinese in Hongkong smuggled.”
His remark was not welcomed. Hongkong merchants were re- luctant to look squarely at the source of the Colony's tensions with China.
Mr. Whittall next commented on statements made in the recent Chinese petition protesting against the seizure and confiscation of a junk by the customs officials. He claimed that contrary to the impression given in the petition, the junk had been engaged in smuggling and was not an innocent victim of rapacious Chinese officials.
This attitude towards the problem from the head of a firm, whose fortunes had been founded on the import of opium and its sales to smugglers, seemed out of character. By 1874, however, Jardine's had little to do with the opium trade but the firm's past associations led to an appreciation of the fact that many Chinese traders had either direct or indirect interests in smuggling.
Another factor influencing Mr. Whittall's tolerant views re- garding the actions of China to protect its income was Jardine's efforts to win railway and other concessions from the Chinese Government. To do this the firm needed to keep on good terms with Chinese officials.
Yet still another factor in Mr. Whittall's position may have been his relation to the local Government. He may have agreed to act as its spokesman at the meeting.
There were other occasions when he was charged with being the Government's mouthpiece, rather than the people's voice as an unofficial member of the Legislative Council.
Mr. Whittall suggested that if the initial request of the Chinese for a consul to supervise duty regulations had been granted, the present conditions would not have arisen. He acknowledged that
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.