Page:Europe in China.djvu/216

198 from Hongkong, in Chinese junks, to any part of the coast of China, so that Hongkong would become the centre of a vast junk trade, and of a coasting trade possessing infinite capabilities of expansion. We can well imagine what was their disappointment, when they learned that the Chinese copy of the Supplementary Treaty, signed at the Bogue (October 8, 1843), contained, over Sir Henry's signature, the following words, not to be found in the English text:—'At ports within the other provinces and within the four provinces of Canton, Foochow, Kiangsu and Chehkiang, such as Chapou and the like places, all of which are not open marts, Chinese merchants shall not be permitted there arbitrarily to apply for permits to go to and from Hongkong, and if any persist in doing so, the Coastguard Officer at Kowloon shall, in concert with the British Officer (at Hongkong), forthwith make investigation and report to their superiors.' When Sir H. Pottinger, a few months previous, announced (July 22, 1840) the successful conclusion of a Supplementary Commercial Treaty, embodying rules and regulations for the conduct of trade at the open ports and a detailed tariff of duties, he had unfortunately accompanied the announcement by some well meant exhortations addressed to British merchants in general, though intended for a few low class individuals, implicated in systematic smuggling transactions. These exhortations, by their vituperative generalities rather than by any definite insinuations, had given great offence and caused the beginning of a breach, between Sir Henry and the mercantile community, which widened as the miscarriage of the Supplementary Treaty concluded, at the Bogue became apparent. Sir Henry made a great secret of some of the provisions contained in the Supplementary Treaty of October 8, 1843. It was known that Article XII contained the startling words, 'it is to be hoped that the system of smuggling which has heretofore been carried on between English and Chinese merchants, in many cases with the open connivance and collusion of the Chinese Custom-house Officers, will entirely cease.' But for a long time it was not known that, on this ground, Articles XIV and XVI