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.Ӥ 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...”
|
|