Your search within this document for 'hong' resulted in 63 matching pages.
 
1

“...6 Canton; and these are communicated through the medium of the Hong merchants. The importation of opium, and its use, were not prohibited by the laws of China before the reign of the Emperor Kea- king, who succeeded to the throne in the year 1796. It was until then regarded as a medicine, and admitted under duty.* But either in the first or in the fourth year of that emperor, (for Chinese authorities are not exactly agreed as to the date,) its introduction and use were prohibited under penalties, on account of its injurious effects on the health and morals of the people.f “ It was strictly prohibited,” say the Viceroy of Canton and his colleagues, the Lieutenant-governor and Hoppo, in their report of September, 1837,J “and dealing in or using it was forbidden, and fixed punishments were appointed to every violation of the law.” This law was frequently after- wards amended, and its penalties increased in severity; § and it was recorded (as the Privy Councillor Choo Tsun || informs us in...”
2

“...ruling barbarians, to deal closely with what is within, but to deal in general with that which is without,—first to govern one’s self, and then only to govern others.” On this principle the class of Hong merchants was established, that the government might have good native security for the obedience of foreigners to the prohibitory orders and other regulations, forming the conditions of their commercial intercourse with China. Thus in an edict of the Viceroy and Lieutenant-governor of Canton, dated the 18th of September, 1837,§ we have these words,— “ The senior Hong merchants must know that it is their pe- culiar office to enforce the imperial orders in matters relating to ships and trade; this is their responsible and most im- portant duty.” In another edict,[| hereafter to be considered, the Hong merchants are told expressly that they will be held responsible for the obedience of the foreigners to the orders issued thereby. And the High Commissioner^ Lin himself * * * § * Appendix I., E...”
3

“...10 distinctly says, that “ It was the desire of preventing an illicit intercourse, and of guarding against contraband commodities, that rendered necessary the establishment of a class of Hong merchants.” We perceive then one security which the Chinese government possessed for the good conduct of foreigners, with- out bringing them under the operation of penal laws ; namely, the responsibility of their sureties. Failing this, there was another remedy always open to them, in the stoppage of the trade, and the expulsion from China of offending ships and persons. And we have the distinct assertion of a high autho- rity, the present Viceroy of Canton, that there was a settled law providing for this method being pursued in every case where it became necessary to act directly against foreigners. “ Your ministers,” says he, in a report * to the emperor, made in December, 1837, speaking of himself and his colleagues in office, “ your ministers have on examination found that, accord- ing to law...”
4

“...the river of Canton. “ It was ordered by his Imperial Majesty, that if one vessel brought opium, that vessel and hei- whole cargo should be rejected and her trading interdicted. If all the vessels brought opium, then they must have all their cargoes rejected, and their trading interdicted, and their ships expelled from the port.” f The Hong mer- chants were made responsible both for the discovery of the fact whether any vessel had opium on board, and for the due exaction of the penalties, if such should prove to be the case. Of this edict public notice was given to the foreign community; but owing, in all probability, to the connivance of the junior Hong merchants, it was not strictly complied with till the year 1821, and the foreign opium-ships still continued to discharge their cargoes at Whampoa as before. This is the first distinct enactment of the Chinese emperors against foreigners engaged in the opium trade; its object and penalties are definite and ascertained. During the remaining...”
5

“...indirectly recognize and establish the rule by which the present case ought to be determined. The Viceroy commenced operations by giving orders to the Hong merchants to the following effect, as communicated by them on the 12th November, 1821, to Mr. Wilcocks, the American consul:—“ Opium has for a long time past been prohibited by law; and on former occasions many official edicts have been issued commanding foreign vessels not to bring it to Canton; and that if a violation of this command was discovered, a severe prosecution and punishment would be the consequence. Now an edict has again issued concerning the foreign vessels of all nations; and if they bring opium with them into the port, do you immediately report it to the Govern- ment, and request them to be expelled from the port, and that no trade with them be allowed. If the Hong merchants con- nive, and do not report the facts to Government, they shall be prosecuted and punished.”* Hence it appears that a new edict had just issued...”
6

“...should be confiscated and delivered to the treasury for the use of Government. The goods, which had not yet been landed, should all be registered; “ and the opium, it should be the duty of Howqua (the senior Hong merchant) and the others to take out of the ship and burn; and let the ships which contained it be expelled from the port and sent back to their own country within five days; and a mark should be set upon them, and they should be for ever disallowed coming to Canton to trade.” Such is the substance of the sentence; part of which, as will at once be seen, exceeds the penalty imposed by the laws of Keaking in respect to this offence, and might seem therefore to furnish something like a precedent for the recent proceedings of the High Commissioner Lin. But what was the sequel? The Hong merchants immediately forwarded to the Viceroy a petition from several foreign mer- chants, craving remission of the penalties thus imposed. The grounds of their application we learn from the Viceroy’s reply...”
7

“...15 carried into force, and the whole of it be rejected ; and respect- ing that which had been delivered, “ let it devolve upon the Hong merchants to calculate justly how much the cost is, and how much is profit; and let them give back the cost to pur- chase "goods with.” “ Thus,” he continues, “ the case will be the same whether their goods have been sold or unsold, and the imperial order (of Keaking) to reject the whole cargo will be complied with. I, the Governor, have obeyed the imperial order, and have still exercised clemency, on account of this being the first offence of those several ships. Hereafter, if the foreign ships of any nation again offend, they cannot crave clemency, nor an exception from confiscation.'' The Viceroy further proceeds as follows, in a passage remarkable as showing that the same reasons prevailed also for the remis- sion of that part of the original sentence which related to the seizure of opium. “ As to one of these four ships, Cowp- land’s, it contained...”
8

“...confiscation which appears to have been conferred upon the Viceroy by the edict of Taoukwang. The Viceroy recognized the justice of their desire to be exempted from the operation of the new law; and accordingly revoked or modified his original sentence, in such a manner as virtually to admit, that at the time when the offence of these parties was committed, no laws were in force in China under which it could be punished, except the edicts of the 16th and subsequent years of Kea- kincr. o The Hong merchants communicated the Viceroy’s deter- mination in this matter to the committee of Supracargoes of the East India Company in the following letter, dated 8th December, 1821:—“ We would state respectfully that we have now’ received the following commands from the Viceroy concerning the case of the country ships (Eugenia, Hogg; Merope, Parkins; and Hooghly, Robinson;) viz. to take a memorandum of the names of the ships, and these merchants, and for ever prohibit their coming to Canton to trade...”
9

“...which, continues the same memorialist, “ the foreign merchants had not a foot to trust to : which is the reason of their carrying on their trade at Lintin.” f The fact is, as another memorial- ist, Hew Kew,£ informs us, that the disclosures made in this prosecution of Yehangshoo led to a further measure, which had really the effect of driving the opium traffic to Lintin. This was a regulation, then first made, that every foreign ship coming up to Whampoa should be “ secured ” by the four senior Hong merchants, who were the only opulent and respectable members of their fraternity; or, in other words, “ that on the arrival of any ship, each of those foui- merchants in rotation should give a bond to the Chinese Government, conveying their responsibility that no opium was imported in her.”§ A demand was at the same time made for similar bonds to be given by the commanders or agents of all foreign ships, without exception, previously to their being so secured; but this latter demand (which was...”
10

“...stating that “ of late years the number of ships entering Kumsingmoon has greatly increased, and they congregate there merely to smuggle and cheat the revenue,” enjoins the orders of the Viceroy that “ those which arrive hereafter may either come up to Whampoa and discharge their cargoes, or remain at Lintin; but Kumsingmoon being in the inner seas > they must not go there."* To the same purpose, and, if pos- sible, still more explicit, are the orders of the same Viceroy given to the thirteen Hong merchants in August, 1836, when the admission of opium under duty was in contemplation, and by them reported, in a letter^ addressed to Mr. Jardine and others, in the following words.—“ As to the receiving ships in the outer waters, as the foreign merchants have only used them as opium stores, when opium is admitted into the port, and a free traffic in it allowed, there will then be no further use for the receiving ships. Hereafter, when the imperial will is received, permitting the new regulations...”
11

“...after stating that “of late years the number of ships entering Kumsingmoon has greatly increased, and they congregate there merely to smuggle and cheat the revenue,” enjoins the orders of the Viceroy that “ those which arrive hereafter may either come up to Whampoa and discharge their cargoes, or remain at Lintin; but Kumsingmoon being in the inner seas > they must not go there.”* To the same purpose, and, if pos- sible, still more explicit, are the orders of the same Viceroy given to the thirteen Hong merchants in August, 1836, when the admission of opium under duty was in contemplation, and by them reported, in a letter^ addressed to Mr. Jardine and others, in the following words.—“ As to the receiving ships in the outer waters, as the foreign merchants have only used them as opium stores, when opium is admitted into the port, and a free traffic in it allowed, there will then be no further use for the receiving ships. Hereafter, when the imperial will is received, permitting the new regulations...”
12

“...before referred to and the latter statesman, himself a member of the Imperial Council, says, “this part of the transaction is notorious, and the actors in it are easily discoverable.” Hew Kew§ speaks to the same effect, and adds, “ Now between the inner land and the outer seas, a wide separation exists. The traitorous natives who sell the opium, cannot alone, in person, carry on the traffic with the foreign ships. To purchase whole- sale there are brokers : to arrange all transactions there are the Hong merchants; to give orders to be carried to the re- ceiving ships, that from them the drug may be obtained, there are resident barbarians; and to ply to and fro for its convey- ance, there are boats called fast crabs. From the great La- * Evidence, vol. iii. Revenue, August 16, 1832, p. 251. t See “ Correspondence,” &c. p. 155. $ Appendix I., A. B. § Appendix I., C....”
13

“...penalties at that time in force against the rest. But with regard to the publicity and notoriety of the traffic, we have a very competent witness in the High Commissioner Lin himself. He informs us (in his edict of March 17, 1839 to the Hong merchants*) that “ for more than ten years past there has not been a shroff’ shrop (banking-house) that has not given bills, nor a machaen (outside shopman) that has not had transac- tions with the opium preparers, nor a hong man or other work- man that has not had connexions with the fast boats. There have been besides the writers’ houses for preparing letters; and brokers, for carrying the orders, would pass in and out of the foreign residences, day and night, without ever being ques- tioned by any one. The shroff’s and Hong merchants’ coolies, and carriers of all grades, would in the daytime openly go into the factories, and would at night afford escort down to the boats.” And nothing perhaps can better show how little the foreigners shrunk from giving...”
14

“...not extend to the exportation of foreign money.! Against this recommendation, so far as it went to sanction the export of foreign coin, Hwang Tseotze, the officer already named, entered his protest, strongly advising that dollars should be included in the prohibition, and that for the future the foreign trade should be conducted exclusively by way of barter and there is reason to believe, from the manner in which this subject is referred to by the High Com- missioner'Lin, in his edict|| to the Hong merchants March- 29, 1839), that, this advice of Hwang Tseotze was approved by the emperor, although it never seems to have been acted upon, or understood to be the law, at Canton. It is worthy of notice, that although at this time the subject of opium was dis- tinctly brought under the attention of the Government of Peking, as at least one of the causes of an evil sufficiently * See Captain Elliot’s Observations on this Memorial in “ Corre- spondence,’’ p. 153. t Chinese Repository, vol. ii...”
15

“...37 Hong merchants,* the Treasurer, and Criminal Judge of Can- ton, j- and finally the Viceroy Tang, the Deputy-governor Ke, and the Hoppo or Superintendent of Customs Wan, unanimously reported^ in favour of Heu Naetse’s plan. In the mean time, however, two powerful officers at Peking, Choo Tsun,§ a mem- ber of the Imperial Privy Council, and Hew Kew, || one of the sub-censors, had come forward and memorialized the emperor on the opposite side. Insisting upon the evils arising from the exportation of silver, even more strongly than Heu Naetse himself, they brought forward arguments of considerable force, to show that it was not likely to be prevented by any increased facilities given to the introduction of opium, the very cause from which it had sprung; but that, on the contrary, the only way to check the evil (which must be done, they say, at all hazards) was by adopting vigorous measures for the suppres- sion of that unlawful traffic, and by a general return to the policy of the prohibitory...”
16

“...was, as has been already stated, to forward the memorial of Heu Naetse, recommending a repeal of the prohibitory laws, to the local authorities of Canton for their report. This memorial was received in July, 1836; the local authorities consulted together, and were unanimous in their approbation of the plan; and the Hoppo, or superintendent of customs, communicated with the Hong merchants upon the \ subject, for the purpose of obtaining their opinion as to the manner in which the proposed regulations (which were an- 1 nounced as certain to be adopted) might best be carried into » effect. The viceroy also required the Hong merchants to com- municate the substance of the instructions they had received to the resident foreign merchants, which they did on the 24th of August, 1836, in a letter before referred to, addressed to Mr. Jardine an<;l others. The first and last paragraphs of this letter...”
17

“...not the value of a hair shall be received. When opium is allowed a free entry into the port, the ships that bring it can only ex- change it for goods; they are not allowed to export specie on their return voyage.”* “Such are the instructions of the governor, ordering us the Hong merchants to transmit them to you, venerable elder brethren, for your information; and we accordingly have prepared this extract from the instructions for your complete information, praying that you will examine and give yourselves the trouble to cause the gentlemen of your honourable nation to thoroughly understand and respectfully obey accordingly. This we pray for, and transmit this note with our best wishes.” (Signed by all the thirteen Hong merchants.) The effect of such a communication as this was, of course, immediately to stimulate and give fresh security to the opium trade ; rnd no official notificationf of the abandonment of the intention so communicated was ever afterwards made to the foreign merchants...”
18

“...all those traitorous natives who sell the drug—the Hong merchants who arrange the transac- tions in it, the brokers who purchase it by wholesale, the boat- men who are engaged in transporting it, and the naval militia who receive bribes—and having determined on the steps to be taken in order to stop up the source of the evil, let them present a true and faithful report. Let them also carefully ascertain and report whether the circumstances stated by Hew Kew in his supplementary document, in reference to the foreigners from beyond the seas, be true or not; whether such things as are mentioned therein have or have not taken place. Copies of the several documents are to be herewith sent to those officers for perusal; and this edict is to be made known to Tang and Ke, who are to enjoin it also on Wan, the superintendent of mari- time customs. Respect this.” On receipt of this edict, the Viceroy of Canton immediately issued an edict* to the Hong merchants, requiring them to inquire into the names...”
19

“...from an imperial edict,* dated the 26th January, 1837, and issued on the receipt of the report already mentioned, in which the Viceroy of Canton and his col- leagues had recommended the admission of opium under duty, that such a measure was still in contemplation, or at least that no resolution was as yet taken against it. The edict in question strictly prohibits the exportation of silver, but is absolutely silent upon the subject of opium. In obedience to the orders of the Viceroy Tang, the Hong merchants inquired (or affected to inquiref) into the connexion of the foreigners resident at Canton with the opium traffic, and reported, among other things, that the receiving-ships being anchored in the outer seas, most of the smuggling carried on by native dealers was conducted by means of sea-going vessels, from various parts of those seas, approaching the receiving- ships and purchasing from them; and that the foreign merchants at Canton were not accustomed to store up or sell opium at all...”
20

“...smuggling? Let it be the re- sponsible duty of the Governor of Kwangtung and his col- leagues, to give strict orders to the Hong merchants, to be en- joined on the resident foreigners of the said nation, requiring them to compel the warehousing vessels now anchored there, one and all, to return home; and not to permit them, under any pretext, to linger about. Let them also ascertain where are the dens and hiding-places of the opium-dealers, and inflict punishment on each individual, without the slightest in- dulgence. Thus the source of the evil may be closed up and the spirit of contumacy suppressed. Let a copy of the me- morial be, together with these commands, transmitted to Tang and Ke, and by them let the commands be enjoined on Wan. Respect this.” On the day after the receipt of this document, the Viceroy of Canton and his colleagues communicated it to the Hong mer- chants in an edict,* the material part of which is in the follow- ing words:—c< We, the viceroy and lieutenant-governor...”