No. LX.-INSULTS IN CHINA.

Return to an Address of the House of Lords, dated February 12, 1857, for Copies or Extracts of any Reports made to Her Majesty's Government of Insults offered by British Residents at Canton to Natives of that place since the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace between this Country and China in 1842; also of any Reports of Insults offered by Chinese to Foreigners.

[Presented by command of Her Majesty.]

ON the 20th December, 1842, Sir Henry Pottinger communicated to the Earl of Aberdeen the particulars of a disturbance at Canton, during which considerable damage was done; three of the factories (including that one called the English factory) were burned, and the lives and property of many of Her Majesty's subjects, and apparently of other foreigners, were placed for a time in considerable jeopardy. The occasion of the disturbance was as follows:-On the 7th December, a trifling dispute took place between a party of lascars, who, to the number of 170, had come up on liberty from the ships at Whampoa, and some Chinese fruit-venders, in which one of the latter was wounded. A tumult arose, two of the lascars were killed, and others conveyed away, when the mob got the upper hand, drove off the Chinese soldiers who had arrived on the application of the merchants to the local authorities, entered the factories, plundered the treasuries, and, carrying out furniture, placed it round the British flag-staff, which was opposite to the old Company's factory, and set fire to it. Fire was also carried into this building, which was under repair by the Chinese Government for the reception of the British Plenipotentiary at the approaching Conferences, for carrying out the details of the Treaty; and the flames soon broke out in all directions. The wind being from the west, the factories west of Hog-lane escaped the fire, and they also escaped from plunder, as the mob, satisfied with the outrage achieved, retired on the renewed appearance of the Chinese troops.

It is stated that this mob was composed of people of the lowest order, belonging not so much to the city as to the neighbourhood; that many were armed with short swords, and that, although the dispute with the lascars was the immediate occasion of the outbreak, the rioters were evidently acting upon a preconcerted plan, under the instigation of influential persons, and were headed by individuals who, from their dress, appeared to be of the better order.

After the occurrence of this disturbance, the British merchants in Hong Kong made a representation to Sir Henry Pottinger, to the effect:-1st, that the disturbance originated in a preconcerted plan; 2nd, that it would have taken place sooner or later without the immediately exciting cause of an affray between certain lascars and the Chinese; 3rd, that the local authorities were either unable or unwilling to afford the necessary protection; and 4th, that there was a spirit of hostility towards the English

amongst certain classes in Canton, who guide and influence the rabble in their operations.

In answer to these allegations, Sir Henry Pottinger observed, as regards the first point, that no single fact had come to his knowledge to authorize him to concur in the opinion they had expressed. On the contrary, it seemed clear that the crew of the Fort William, and other ships, were the originators of the disturbance. The second point was disposed of by the preceding remarks; and, viewed abstractedly, was based on mere surmise. As to the alleged inability of the local authorities to afford protection, that was only a conjecture. And as to the fourth, Sir Henry charged the British merchants of having, by their conduct, thrown serious difficulties and obstacles, if not positive risk, in the way of the then-pending arrangements.

The Governor-General of Canton, in answer to a note of Sir Henry Pottinger, explained the causes of the disturbance. He desired the plenipotentiary to transmit orders to the Consular officer residing at Canton rigorously to restrain the black-faced foreigner, that they may not be allowed to create disturbance, and give rise to such affrays; and stated that as soon as the amount of money and property plundered from the merchants shall have been ascertained, the sums shall be severally recovered and repaid.

The British merchants, in answer to Sir Henry Pottinger's letter, objected to the charges brought against them, and warmly resented the public censure cast upon them.

On the 5th February, 1844, Sir Henry Pottinger communicated to the Earl of Aberdeen that some person, who had gone out to shoot, about a mile and a half from the shipping, had fired through a hedge (by which all the farm-houses in that part of China are surrounded) and severely wounded two boys, who were brought to the temporary Consulate some hours after in a very dangerous state, and that it was believed by Dr. Hale that one would be blind for life. Steps had been taken to secure the offender, and meanwhile the two wounded boys were cared for.

On the 10th January, 1845, Mr. Davis gave information to the Earl of Aberdeen on the subject of a seizure and robbery committed on the persons of several Chinese, in the British service at Koo-lang-soo, employed to purchase stores for the troops. A complaint was made by Mr. Davis to Commissioner Keying, and he gave orders that the matter should be investigated, that the plundered property should be restored, and the prisoners set at liberty.

On the 4th April, 1845, Mr. Davis again informed Lord Aberdeen that an aggravated assault had been made by some of the people of Canton on Mr. Vice-Consul Jackson and Messrs. Martin and Stanton, as they were inoffensively walking on the outside of the city. Mr. Davis added, that the insolence of the people was very much promoted by the degrading exclusion of the English from the interior of the city, in which his predecessor

acquiesced, under an assurance from the Imperial Commissioner that it should be only temporary. A statement of the outrage, drawn up by the sufferers, was presented to Consul Macgregor, and the restitution was demanded of some watches, purses, &c. Mr. Davis made official remonstrance of the same to Commissioner Keying; and in answer the Commissioner stated that he had given orders for the apprehension of the vagabonds, and that they will be punished according to Chinese laws. As regards the entering into the city, the Commissioner confirmed what had been arranged with Sir Henry Pottinger, that he entertained no other view in this affair but that dictated by the disposition of the Canton populace, which rendered it impossible.

In answer to the despatch of Mr. Davis of the 4th April, the Earl of Aberdeen said that it would be desirable to obtain free access to the city of Canton, and that he was prepared to sanction Mr. Davis's attempts in that respect. Much prudence, however, was required in dealing with the question; and that, probably, there was more ground for the apprehensions of the Chinese authorities with regard to the difficulty of controlling the populace at Canton, than experience has shown to have been the case at Foo-chow-foo. Lord Aberdeen left the matter in Mr. Davis's hands, but cautioned him to conduct any discussion with Keying on the subject with the utmost temper, and on every account to avoid pushing matters to the extremity of interrupting the free course of trade in the Canton water.

On the 24th April, 1845, Mr. Davis wrote to the Earl of Aberdeen, showing the injury produced by the continued exclusion of the English from the city of Canton. Article XII. of the treaty of Nankin expressly stipulated, as one condition of the restoration of Chusan, that "the arrangements at the ports shall be completed," which could scarcely be deemed to be the case as long as this important point was unsettled at Canton. Further correspondence ensued between Mr. Davis and Commissioner Keying respecting the admission into Canton.

Those who assaulted Mr. Vice-Consul Jackson and friends were imprisoned and condemned; and a special proclamation was issued against such offences being committed.

On the 23rd September, 1845, Lord Aberdeen referred once more to the despatch of Sir J. Davis respecting the free access of English subjects to Canton; and alluding to the then-approaching restoration of Chusan to the Emperor, he instructed Sir J. Davis to renew with urgency his application for the free admission of English subjects and dependents to every part of Canton, and to intimate that when thus admitted, conformably to treaty, the Chinese Government will be held responsible for the good treatment of such British subjects by the people of Canton. Failing in such demands, Sir J. Davis was commissioned to state that unless the Emperor carry out his engagement with respect to Canton, the British Government will be justified in withholding the execution of theirs with regard to Chusan.

On the 23rd August, 1845, Mr. Davis communicated to Lord Aberdeen that Mr. Consul Alcock had made representations as to the aggressive conduct of the populace at Foo-chow-foo, with the intimation of an opinion that the same was connived at by the authorities of the place; in consequence of which he addressed himself to the Governor-General of Fo-kien and Che-Keang, calling upon him in urgent terms to observe the first article of the treaty of Nankin, in giving proper protection to British subjects. The Governor-General of Fo-kien and Che-keang, in answer, accounted for the insults alleged to have been made against the British residents at Foo-chow, by the natural curiosity of a crowded people, in narrow streets, at the arrival of strangers differing so much from the natives in their dress, language, &c., and he assured Mr. Davis that he would redouble his endeavours to secure tranquillity.

On the 27th August, Sir J. Davis informed Lord Aberdeen that Mr. Consul Alcock had obtained signal reparation for a wanton and barbarous attack made by certain individuals of the Tartar garrison on Mr. Parkes, the interpreter to the consulate. The Earl of Aberdeen, in answer, signified the approbation of Her Majesty's Government of the proceedings taken as regards such outrages.

On the 24th February, 1846, Sir J. Davis communicated to Lord Aberdean an unprovoked attack on Commander Giffard and other officers of the navy, who had landed in the vicinity of Whampoa for the purpose of exercise and shooting. Upon representation of the attack by Mr. Consul Macgregor to the Commissioner, he answered that, according to the 6th article of the Supplementary Treaty, the English merchants are not permitted to make excursions into the interior. The particulars of this case, as represented by Commissioner Keying to Sir J. Davis, from the reports of an investigation instituted, are as follow:-"There were constantly people who came on shore from the foreign vessels, that were at anchor near Whampoa, to walk about, but they never went far, nor entered the villages. Hence mutual quietness had reigned for a considerable time. But on the 9th day of the present month (4th February) there came all on a sudden above ten English officers and men with fowling-pieces, and advanced to the eastward of Shating, the large street of Pih-tang, and other villages. They traversed every place, and frightened the women in the villages, to the great regret of every one. Being apprehensive of some disturbance, they (the elders) expelled them, whilst some took up stones and threw at them, to inspire fear, without, however, hurting any one. They, on their part, kept the multitude in check, prevented them from doing mischief, and dispersed the crowd. Such was the evidence given."

Sir J. Davis, still complaining of the attacks made against British subjects, referred to the fact that the illicit trade in opium, outside of the port, was carried on extensively under the connivance of the Mandarins. Were the trade legalized, the whole of the foreign ships would be collected within the four ports under the control of the Consuls. They would all

pay tonnage-dues, and about 2,000,000 dols. would easily be collected on the opium. The Earl of Aberdeen, in answer to this communication, regretted the want of caution on the part of the British subjects.

On the 23rd April, 1846, Sir J. Davis communicated to the Earl of Aberdeen the particulars of a serious riot which took place in the suburbs of Foochow-foo, and in which some Englishmen and some Canton Chinese were concerned. Mr. Alcock stated, in his despatch on the subject, that there was no hostility whatever against the English, save in so far as they identify themselves with a rabble of Canton, men of the worst character, hanging about the suburbs, and with acts of aggression or altercation, originating with the Canton servants. Some plunder was made during this attack, especially against a Mr. Glen, for which compensation was asked, but, according to Sir J. Davis, claims of a speculative nature had been advanced. Mr. Glen, after making up an account for 10,261 dollars, immediately added 100 per cent. for "suffering and inconvenience," arising from the loss specified. The total claims advanced for losses incurred during the riots at Foochow-foo, on the 31st March and 1st of April, were, William Hudson Roper, 15,886 dols. 42 c.; Charles Hacket, 19,087 dols. 33 c.; William Hacket, 1,901 dols.; James Miln, 250 dols. ; total, 37,124 dols. 75 c. Reparation was subsequently obtained, and the sum paid by the Chinese Government amounted to 46,163 dols. 77 c. Mr. Glen, however, lodged a separate claim to the extent of 150,000 dols., principally based on contingent profits; but he having departed from Foo-chow-foo, Viscount Palmerston did not authorize Sir J. Davis to make any demand for it upon the Chinese Government.

On the 22nd May, 1847, Sir J. Davis informed Viscount Palmerston that a Malay sailor, employed on board an English boat, had been robbed and severely ill-used in one of the streets of Canton, but the robber was severely punished.

On the 31st May, Sir J. Davis communicated that the conduct of the Chinese vagabonds in the neighbourhood of the foreign factories seemed calculated to give them trouble, but upon proper representation to Commissioner Keying, additional garrison was placed at the station near the factories, and the rabble had been dispersed.

On the 13th of June, Mr. Consul Macgregor reported that on the 28th ult. stones had been thrown from the shore at an English boat on the river, containing five persons. In asking for the punishment of the aggressors, Sir J. Davis reiterated the following message from Viscount Palmerston, that, "if the Chinese authorities will not, by the exercise of their own power, punish and prevent such outrages, the British Government will be obliged to take the matter into their own hands, and it will not be their fault if, in such case, the innocent are involved in the punishment which may be sought to be inflicted on the guilty." The men who threw the stones were apprehended, and, although no one had been wounded by them, and the act was unintentional, they were condemned to the infliction of the