Page:Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and other Treaty Ports of China.djvu/42

34 he was the brother of His Majesty's Under Secretary of State who had the honour to write the King's letters. The Court might have spared themselves this petty deceit. Captain Skottowe's mission was a complete failure, not a single point of the list of demands he presented being conceded. Thereafter, for some years, events pursued their accustomed course. The only development of interest was the revival of the Co-hong, in 1760, with consequences very detrimental to the Company's trade. The supercargoes were instructed to pay constant attention to this conspiracy and to other restrictions on trade, but at the same time they were told "that in all their proceedings pacific and conciliatory measures only were to be observed, and the utmost care taken not to give any just reason for umbrage to the Chinese government." In I764 the visit of the British warship Argo to the Canton River led to trouble of a new kind. The Chinese authorities, on the appearance of the ship, insisted on measuring her with a view to the payment of the ordinary dues. The captain resented this on the ground that the officials had no power over a king's ship. In consequence of the attitude he assumed the merchants refused to be responsible for the Company's ships, and trade was stopped. To alleviate the situation the supercargoes offered to pay dues for the Argo at the same rate as that charged for the largest Company's ship; but this was declined. The Hoppo stated that he intended to proceed to Whampoa to measure the ship, and that if his request was refused she would have to leave. The Isontock took an even higher line. He wanted to know what the supercargoes meant by offering to pay the measureage in lieu of the ship being measured? Such procedure, he intimated, was contrary to all custom, and he concluded by saying that if the ship was not measured, the supercargoes would have to leave the country, and the merchants would be bambooed and banished Canton. In view of the official attitude the supercargoes strongly urged the captain of the Argo to submit in order to avert the injurious results which would, in their opinion, certainly flow from a refusal. After due deliberation the captain assented, and the ship was measured, to the great relief of the traders, whose affairs had been at almost a complete standstill during the four months that the dispute continued. In connection with the Argo's visit to Canton we find, in a minute of the Court of the Directors of the period, one of the first references to that traffic in opium which was destined, a good many years later, to exercise a powerful influence on the course of events in China. The Court, adverting to the stoppage of trade caused by the incident just narrated, state that they had heard that, besides other goods, opium had been shipped in the Argo in the way of private trade, and they requested that a full account might be sent home of the matter, as opium was prohibited and the importation might be most detrimental to the Company's interests. The fact that the Company's ships were the only vessels exempted from search on account of opium no doubt lent point to this instruction. By this time the British trade in China had dropped into a regular groove, and it was yearly growing in importance. In order that their interests might be better safeguarded the Court, in 1770, ordered that their surpercargoes, instead of going backwards and forwards with the ships, should reside permanently in China. An almost immediate outcome of this change in system was the dissolution of the Co-hong, which the supercargoes were able to effect through an intermediary, though only at the cost of 100,000 taels. The removal of this barrier to trade had a beneficial effect, but in general the position of the British traders did not improve with the lapse of years and the growth of their mercantile relations. Regrettable incidents were still of frequent occurrence. They were not always due to faults on the Chinese side, but in their adjustment the Chinese officialdom invariably put themselves in the wrong by their arrogant and unfair attitude. One of the most important of these imbroglios occurred in 1784 through the accidental killing of two Chinese by the firing of a saluting gun from the British ship Lady Hughes. On the occurrence becoming known the authorities, accompanied by the native merchants, waited on the President of the British factory to demand that the man who had fired the gun should be given up in accordance with the laws of the Empire. The reply given was that it could not be ascertained who the man was, that in all probability the gunner had absconded, and that they (the supercargoes) had no power over private ships, to which category this vessel belonged. However, the supercargo of the Lady Hughes agreed, at the instance of the Select Committee—as the Company's governing body at Canton was styled—to go to Canton in order to explain the circumstances. This individual subsequently accompanied the Chinese officials to their destination, and after an examination for form's sake, he was decoyed away and conveyed by an armed guard into the city. The seriousness of the turn that events had taken was recognised by the European communities of all nationalities. With one accord they agreed to stand by the British in their demand for the release of the supercargo. In order to give emphasis to the protest armed boats of the several ships at anchor at Whampoa were called up to Canton.

Notwithstanding this display of force, the Chinese resolutely declined to hand over the supercargo until the gunner or some substitute had been provided. The Select Committee ultimately weakly conceded the point by delivering over to the custody of the Chinese the man who fired the gun on the fatal occasion. When he was surrendered the Mandarins desired the Europeans present "not to be uneasy as to his fate." This was thought at the time to be reassuring. But the Select Committee were reckoning without the ingrained devotion of the Chinese to the spirit of their law of homicide, under which the causing of death in all circumstances, even the most innocent, is a serious crime. On January 8, 1785, in consequence of an order received from the Emperor, the unfortunate man was put to death by strangling. Afterwards representatives of the various European factories were summoned to attend the Mandarins, and were informed by them that the Emperor was greatly displeased at their having so long delayed giving the man up. The official spokesman commented on the extreme moderation of the Government in demanding the life of only one foreigner while the lives of two Chinese subjects had been lost by the accident. He added that the Government expected a readier compliance with their demands on any future occasion of a similar character. It does not appear that any further protest was made by the British representatives against the arbitrary action of the authorities. Probably it was recognised that such would have been useless. Whether that is the true explanation or not the episode cannot be said to reflect credit on the British representatives of the period. They seem to have blustered at the outset and then to have handed this wretched man over without the smallest guarantee as to his treatment. They might have known from earlier experiences of the same type that the surrender in the circumstances was tantamount to acquiescence in a sentence of death. Reviewing the whole circumstances of the deplorable incident later the Court made some sensible remarks on the general attitude of the Chinese. "Experience had shown," they wrote, "that the Court of Pekin would use its power to carry into execution whatever it declares to be the law. Individual Chinese