New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4550, 20 October 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20.

The telegrams which have recently appeared relative to a difficulty between England and China, and its ultimate settlement, have given us little information beyond the fact that there was a difficulty, that it was settled, and that it had something to do with the Chinese Customs authorities and the treaty as regards Customs between England and China. But in files of the Hongkong Times, which have reached us through the courtesy of Captain Pitjmxey, of the schooner May,.we are able to discover some clue to the absolute causes of the quarrel,, which seems to have arisen in consequence of the very liberal interpretation the Chinese Customs officers put upon their powers of seizure under the treaty. On the 27th October, 1865, Mr. Wade, now British Representative at the Court of Pekin, and Prince Rung, the Chinese Prime. Minister, agreed upon articles relative to cases of Customs seizure, which were circulated for the benefit of the mercantile community. These articles merely had reference to the mode of procedure after seizure had been made, the right to seize being, of course, included in the treaty of Tientsin, to which reference has been made in our telegrams. Article 47 of that treaty provides that—- “ British merchant vessels are not entitled to resort to other than the porta of trade open by treaty, they are not unlawfully to enter other ports in China or to carry on clandestine trade along the coast thereof.” The penalty for violating this provision is possible confiscation of both ship and cargo by the Chinese Government. As is known, only a few Chinese ports have been declared ports of trade open by treaty, and any British vessel resorting to the closed ports is therefore liable to seizure and confiscation. It is from circumstances which have arisen out of alleged infractions of the rules for trade indicated in the treaty and articles, that the difficulty to which attention has been drawn lately has arisen, and it is not difficult on reading accounts of some of those circumstances to see how directly warlike they became. It is evident that British traders have considered that they did not transgress the terras of the treaty if they took passengers and cargo, opium and the like, to within a few miles of closed ports, and there transferred them to Chinese junks, in which they might, of course, be put ashore. But the Chinese Customhouse took quite a different view of this matter, and declined to permit its continuance. They were in a position to carryout their views, too, because amongst the many improvements which the Chinese have lately effected, may be reckoned a very serviceable navy, including revenue cruisers officered and partly manned by British seamen. In this state of affairs, early in July last a British steamer, the Carisbrooke, was seized off a closed port, Hainan, by the Chinese Revenue cruiser Peng Chao Hai, and following her seizure came some very exciting events, which were detailed before the mixed Court of Chinese and English officials, who, according to the “ articles,” tried the case. The chief witness for the Chinese Customs authorities said he was on board the Peng Chao Hai, which went to Hainan for a cruise. “ They first saw the Oarisbrooke when about seven miles from her. They went to her ; the Carisbrooke being then less than two miles from the shore. The Carisbrooke was seen to be discharging passengers and cargo into junks. Witness and Captain Palmer went on board her, and asked Captain Scott what he was doing there. The latter replied that he was landing passengers. They told him he had no business there, it being a non-treaty port. They asked what passengers ho had for that place, and he replied 150. They also asked if he had any cargo for there, and he replied that he had a supercargo on board, who could give particulars as to the cargo.. Captain Scott produced a manifest of his cargo for Hongkong, Amoy, and Swatow, and the Hainan cargo was written down at the time. It consisted of eleven cases of opium and six packages of piece goods. He told Captain Scott that ho must follow him with his steamer to Whampoa,

for breaking the treaty. He asked Captain Scott three times; he replied, verbally, that he would. Captain Scott asked that he he might be allowed to land the Hainan passengers there, as it would save both ship and passengers expense, and he told him he must make an application in writing. Captain Scott did so, and witness granted the request, on condition that their baggage was inspected. This was done. The chief officer (Mr. Collins) and three quarter-masters Of the Peng Chao Hai were then sent on board the Oarisbrooke, and shortly after both vessels started away. They kept together for a while, and then the Peng Chao Hai signalled to the Oarisbrooke to alter her course. In the afternoon, Mr. Collins signalled that the Peng Chao Hai was steering for Hongkong, and that Captain Scott had unrove the signal halyards, and would not allow them to signal with them. ■ All night the two vessels kept company, and in the morning the Oarisbrooke was again signalled to alter her course; but Captain Scott refused. Witness then wrote on a board that he would use force, if necessary, to compel obedience to his instructions. As the steamer did not alter her course, he fired a blank charge across her bows. She, however, still kept on the same course. The witness wished it to be clearly understood that he did not desire to injure anyone on board the steamer, but he determined to disable her. For this purpose he fired four, shots at the rudder, hitting it each time. He himself fired the shots to make sure of accuracy of the aim. He denied that the side of the steamer was struck by a shot, attributing the damage to the side to a bolt disconnected from the rudder. After the four shots had been fired, Captain Scott signalled for them to come closer. They were then sixty or seventy yards off. On their doing so, Captain Scott said he refused to follow to Whampoa, and that they must themselves take full charge and possession of the ship. At his request, a written document to that effect was handed him. They sent on board one engineer, some firemen, and crew, and took possession and control of the steamer. They attempted to tow her, but the tow-rope broke, and then the Oarisbrooke steamed after them. They anchored at Tiger Island for the night, and the next morning went to Whampoa.” The captain of the Oarisbrooke, on the other side, denied the accuracy of many of these statements, especially as to the distance the steamer was from the Hainan shore. He called witnesses who disproved the statement as to the Carisbrooke not being more than two miles from the shore. It was almost impossible to get bearings, so that to judge of the distance was only guesswork. “He believed his vessel was at least a mile and a half from the breakers, and the chart showed the breakers to be two miles from the land. It had been said there were contraband goods amongst the cargo ; but that he denied; it was not ship’s cargo, but passengers’ luggage. Not being cargo, he did not see how it implicated the ship. There were twelve cases of opium for Hainan. The whole interest of the ship in calling at Hainan, in passengers and freight, was 1200 dols.” The counsel for the captain of the Oarisbrooke handed in to the Court a long written protest and statement, of which the following is the more important part:—

The gravamen of the charge against the Carisbrooke is that when seized she was “clandestinely trading/’ or it must fall to the ground. Mere trading, without the element of clandcstineness, is obviously not enough. This was plainly the object of the treaty, because it must have been foreseen, as has happened, that trade in different spots and under certain conditions might grow up and receive for years the silent sanction of custom without the formal sanction of treaty, and that it would be monstrous in cases where such trade had been there informally or even irregularly legitimated, to allow the Chinese Government to turn round upon it, and put in force the tremendous engine of confiscation. The treaty did not contemplate such a construction, and the word “ clandestine" was introduced, as 1 submit, to guard against an interpretation so harsh as this, the consequences. of which might be sufficient to involve people wholly innocent of any intentional offence in complete ruin. ■Whether or not therefore the Carisbrooke was engaged in clandestine trade along the coast in fair meaning of the terra involves an issue of momentous importance. In the first place is she the hind of vessel one would expect to find knowingly engaged in an unlawful enterprise, the issue of which might be confiscation ? The answer must be, Certainly not! She is a valuable new steamer of nearly 1000 tons register, and flying the British- flag. Her net cost, including alterations to fit her for the China trade, has been altogether 140,000d015., and she has been off the stocks only two years. She has no great speed to fit her for unlawful service, such as now would be undoubtedly required. A vessel more unfit or more unlikely to be knowingly used in an unlawful enterprise of this kind could scarcely have been selected. In the second place, was her cargo such as was likely to be placed on board a ship knowingly sent on an unlawful enterprise ? Again the answer must be obviously the same. It was a valuable general cargo, consisting of Chinese Singapore goods, and was worth about 200,000 dols. The whole of this cargo was destined for Hongkong, Swatow, and Amoy, with the exception of the few chests of opium and cases of piece goods belonging to the passengers for Hainan, which I shall presently refer to. In the next place, in considering this question of clandestineness, it is highly important to consider the proportion between the profit earned and the risk run by the ship in gaining that profit. The interest which the ship had in touching at Hainan amounted in the gross to something a little over 1250 dols., from which must be deducted something like SOOdols.—expenses due to her stoppage. At the outside, therefore, the ship would not earn above 1000 dols. in freight for running this tremendous risk. Otherwise than in the earning of freight, the ship had no interest whatever in the venture. The disproportion between profit and risk is therefore almost immeasurable, and this has not only a most important bearing on the bona fldes of the whole transaction, but also it should bo one of the most important elements for the Court to consider if it should be against me on the main question, in estimating the amount of penalty to be inflicted.

During the sitting of the Court the Hongkong papers were loud in dissatisfaction, and it was plainly alleged that the Chinese members of the Court, with whom the decision in the case really rested, were personally interested in confirming the seizure. They did so, and decided on confiscation of the ship and cargo, but her Majesty’s Consul being unable to agree with this, the whole case was referred to the high authorities of both nations at Peking for decision, and pending this the Carisbrooke was released on bond. It is quite evident that it was the reference of this case that has lately created the difficulty at Peking between Mr. Wade and the Chinese authorities, regarding the Customs clauses of the Treaty of Tientsin and the subsequent articles, and it is now evident that the ultimate result has been in favor of the British trader.