[
    {
        "id": 209652,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1982",
        "page_number": 309,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "Notes and QUERIES\n\n287\n\nIt is possible to trace the history of Mr. Herton's unhappy experience in the matter of transit passes in the consular correspondence from Kiungchow (H) or Hoihow (now Hai-k’ou), the port of Hainan Island facing the mainland. Briefly, the facts appear to be as follows. On 7th June 1877 the British firm of Herton, Ebell & Co. applied for transit passes to bring sugar from the interior. The reply from the Chinese customs authorities was that regulations for issue of transit passes had not yet been drawn up, so none could be issued. Edward Herton decided nevertheless to go and buy sugar and galangal (or galingale), for which he paid duty at Hai-Ant customs house. Further purchases were made in July and November 1877, on each occasion transit passes being applied for and refused, and duties at a higher rate than would have been due under the transit scheme were paid.\n\nOn 8th May 1878, Messrs. Herton, Ebell & Co. made a formal complaint to H.M. Consul at Kiungchow, claiming $20,000 against the Chinese Government for excess duty paid and losses incurred due to the non-issue of transit passes. The acting consul, James Scott, forwarded this to Hugh Fraser, H.M. Chargé d'Affaires in Peking on 30th May (F.O.228, v.612, p.273-4), with his comment that there was insufficient supporting evidence for such a large claim. Scott had previously submitted to Fraser on 8th May (F.O.228, v.612, p.267-71) a claim on behalf of Messrs. Herton, Ebell for excess duty amounting to $909.57, for which there was supporting documentation. What happened to this earlier claim is not clear, but Fraser forwarded the larger claim, which was in the form of a petition to the Secretary of State with supporting documents, to the Foreign Office on September 25 (F.O.228, v.603, p.262-3) with the comment:\n\n“British traders may perhaps not unjustly ask to be reimbursed the amount actually paid by them as Transit duty over and above that which they would have had to pay had passes been allowed them; but I am not prepared to support any such demand for an additional ‘indemnity’ as that which is made in Mr. Herton's letter to acting Vice Consul Scott of the 8th August last.”",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209654,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1982",
        "page_number": 311,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n289\n\nThe conclusion of the matter is shown in F.O.228, v.654, p.146-152. In a letter to Sir Thomas Wade, written from Hong Kong on 28th Aug. 1880, Byron Brenan describes how he went to Canton \"in obedience to your instructions\", and finding the Governor General would not be available for two weeks owing to a death in the family, argued the case with the Superintendent of Customs. This did not go straightforwardly, and involved Brenan in a trip to Hoihow to obtain the receipts required as evidence that the sums had been paid as claimed. Eventually, however, he was able to obtain payment of $787.12 as the amount of tax in excess of what would have been due under the transit pass system, plus interest of $118.06, being 5% for three years, $905.18 in all. The last paper on the matter is a receipt for the refund, signed by Louis Jüdell, who is mentioned in Mr. Herton's letter to Mr. Keswick, in the capacity of his duly authorized attorney. It also appears from the covering letter of Acting Consul Scott that Mr. Ebell had severed his connection with the firm in August 1879.\n\nThe other letter to Mr. Keswick is less interesting, as it does not lead one into such a long paper chase (albeit on microfilm) through Foreign Office records. Nevertheless, it adds to the picture of problems faced by foreign merchants in China at that time. It reads as follows:\n\nHong Kong 12th March 1879\n\nDear Mr. Keswick,\n\nIn compliance with your request that I should give you a statement of the position of the Transit Pass Question at Pakhoi when I was at that port a month ago I beg to submit the following remarks.\n\nI was informed that a proclamation was to be issued on the day I left the 21st Feb. authorizing the issue of passes for cloth, specifying linen and camlets, but the Commissioner stated that the word cloth would be construed liberally as to",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    }
]