Page:Europe in China.djvu/521

Rh Tonnochy) to inquire into abuses connected with the action of the Chinese Maritine Customs in the neighbourhood of Hongkong. Whilst this Commission was sitting, the Harbour Master (H. G. Thomsett) stated, in his official report for the year 1873. that the junk trade of Hongkong had diminished in consequence of the interference of Chinese cruisers. Moreover the latter, seizing a junk bound for Hongkong, the Kamhopsing, in the Lyeemoon pass (January 19, 1874), aptly illustrated the truth of the Harbour Master's statement. The report of the Commission (April 28, 1874) entirely confirmed the views of the community, but the Governor refused to publish it until the decision of the Secretary of State on the report was received (May 10, 1875). Meanwhile a fresh outrage occurred. A Chinese revenue junk was arrested near Cape D'Aguilar (May, 1874) in the act of firing into some fishing boats in British waters. The crew of the junk were tried in the Supreme Court on a charge of piracy, but the Viceroy of Canton wrote to the Governor claiming the vessel as a Government cruiser, acknowledging that she had no right to fire in British waters and promising to punish the men. Thereupon the Attorney General was ordered by the Governor to enter a . The men were accordingly discharged to the great regret of the Chief Justice and the whole community. The Chinese community also presented (June 24. 1874) a petition to the Queen, and this petition was followed up by a decision of the Chamber of Commerce (August 3, 1874) to memorialize the Secretary of State, and by a public meeting (September 14, 1874) which condemned the blockade as an organized invasion of the freedom and sanctuary of the port and harbour of Hongkong. In reply to a Memorial agreed to at this meeting. Lord Carnarvon, in a dispatch published 11th May, 1875, admitted that abuses and excesses had occurred in connection with the action of the Chinese revenue cruisers, but pleaded that the exercise of the right of search, in close proximity to Hongkong, for the purpose of defeating attempts on the part of Chinese subjects to defraud the revenue of their country, did not affect the freedom of the port, and afforded no valid ground