reported that 'certain branches of commerce had not yet recovered from the panic into which they were thrown by the attempt, in October and November (1868), on the part of the Canton Customs to stop the whole trade in foreign goods by Chinese bottoms to any other place than Canton.' The Harbourmaster's report for 1869 shewed a falling off of 2,222 junks, equal to 113,252 tons, owing to the blockade. But after a few years the Chinese merchants, recognizing the helplessness of the case, and the retribution awaiting them if they made any complaints, submitted to these oppressive exactions and found it to be to their own interest and convenience to obtain passes in town, at the secret taxing offices which continued to flourish on the sly, rather than risk the delay and uncertainty of payments made at the outside stations.
That this blockade scheme aimed at destroying the freedom of the port as well as the junk-trade of the Colony, appeared very clearly from a proposal, which originated with one of the Commissioners of the Chinese Customs Service (Th. Dick), but which was sternly rejected by Sir Richard. It was proposed, that an export duty should be levied in Hongkong, by a Branch of the Chinese Customs Service, upon the opium (and in course of time, no doubt, upon all other goods) re-shipped in Hongkong by junks, the Colony retaining a certain portion of the revenue as commission for so collecting it. The strongest opponent of the blockade was the Hon. Ph. Ryrie who, as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce (September 12, 1871), stated that there could be no question as to the illegality of the action taken by the Chinese officials which, in point of fact, almost amounted to an act of armed hostility against the Colony. Mr. Ryrie strongly protested against the inaction of the Home Authorities in this Imperial question. He also caused the publication of a letter addressed to the Chamber by Baron de Meritens, formerly a Commissioner of the Chinese Customs, stating—that arresting, on the high seas, vessels leaving Hongkong was contrary to the law of nations, that the Viceroy was acting with reluctance under orders sent him from Peking, that Sir Richard's objections
