THe Hongkong Daily Press of the 10th inst, announced that the laud telegraph line which was to connect Canton with Hongkong had been prohibited by the Taung-li Yamen; but on the 11th inst, it partly withdraws and partly qualifies the statement. The China Mail of the 10th mat. also makes reference to the matter, and, as we have had some information of our own on the subject, we think we may safely say that the construction of the line has beau delayed for some months, owing to difficulties with both Chinese and British officials, and that even if the work is carried out to its end, the Chinese officials are likely to object to the land telegraph being in private hands, particularly of Hongkong Chinese, who as a close are not regarded with confidence or favour by provincial officials. If the line had been actually prohibited, judging from what we have hoard, we should not be inclined to waste much sympathy on the pro-lectors, In the first instance, it is said that the line was intended to have been the sectional part of a Russo-Danish monopoly whose operation on the British soil of Hongkong would have been an offence to H. M. Government and to British subjects. In the second place we have heard, though details have been given to us, that the Chinese manager refused to carry out. the orders he had received from the late Canton Viceroy, H.E. Chang, and in a foolish way was inclined to kick at both the Chinese and British governments, We take it that the English government is of all govern. ments the most liberal in granting to subjects of any nations whatsoever fall and free landing rights for telegraph cables. Our shores are as free as our ports, and all comers are welcome. But " line may clearly with propriety be drawn against cables which are not only properties of monopolists, but of Anglophobie monopolists, It is possible that the foreign community in China has not yet fully considered what the effect upon foreign and, we may add, native trade would have been if the most improper and hostile attempt of the Russo-Danish Company of 1881 to gain a monopoly of (elegeaphy in China lund been carried out. Every foreign bank and trader would have suffered immediate injury, all the more bard to bent heoanse the immense foreign trade with Ohina would have been at the merey of some Danish speculators, whose chief aim is to serve Russia, Tariff, alrendy excessive, would have been heightened; the service, alrendy excessively irregular, and—to put the matter mildly—not in public favour, would have become worse, because secure from opposition; and in addition to the injuries done to trade, England, France, Germany, and other treaty powers would each and all have had their political relations at the mercy of the company of which all of us, with good reason, have been complaining bitterly. We donot think that the stoppage vf the Canton laud telegraph line if i% had occurred could have been considered retrograde step, but on the contrary that the stoppage has been brought about by faults of the Chinese managers or directors of the company. According to what we hear, H.M. Government did well in refusing to allow the Chinese line to come into Hongkong until sufficient securities were given of good behaviour. As the securities were, we presume, not given, H.M. Government was justified in continuing its prohibition. Obviously it would be an affront to HIM. subjects, if an anti-English mouopoly was held in Hongkong by either Danes or Chinese or both, We may remark in conclusion that it was ye: strange that neither the Shanghai nor the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce made any sign when the sea and land monopoly was brandished before us Inst yenr; yet the evil consequences, the attempt bad been snocessfal, would' have been much more worthy of discussion than some of the petty matters that occupy those two per-factory and drowsy institutions, THE EASE OF MR. HARMAN, Tr seems to us that Mr, George Harman, of Foochow, is a man with @ real grievance. In December, 1880, two steam-launches belonging to this gontleman were seized in & very arbitrary manner by the Tao-lai under the plea of an alleged breach of Art. 47 of the Treaty of Tientsin, and then and there confiscated. The actual charge brought against Mr. Harman was that the launches were in the habit of resorting to Shui-kon, a village some seventy miles up the river Min. The action of the Tao-t'ai was shown to have been irregular, and therefore unjustifiable as the step, in any case, should have been taken through the British author. ities. But it was decided at the hear. ing before the Consul that no broach of the Treaty bad taken place; the defence set up by Mr. Harman was borne out in every particular; his og. cusser failed to attend the Court, and the Consul concluded his Decision by expressing an opinion that the seizure and arrest of the two Iauuches was not justifiable under the Treaty, and that they should be at once restored to the owner. This happened in February, 1881; and from that time to this the launches have remained in possession of the Chinese, and Mr, Harman reduced to the greatest distress in consequence, Moreover, with the launches, Mr. Har. man has lost the commission-business on which he, his children, and his widowed mother had previously dee pended for their support; for the simple reason that the Chinese are afraid, if they trast him with goods of any kind, some high-banded official might seize the merchandise, and there be not the slightest chance of the Consular authorities succeeding in getting it back. The Chinese know perfectly well that the Consul is unable to enforce his authority, and it is difficult to blame them for their cantion, It certainly seems monstrous that a British subject should be allowed to euffor for an action on the part of the Chinese, which was condemned in a British Consular Court as illegal and unjust. Is the Consul at Foochow a toy in the hands of the Chinese? Is he helpless to sustain the cause of a countryman whom he acknowledges to be in the right? Such would almost appear to be the case; and we submit that the spectacle of a British officer who can thus allow himself to be so disdainfully treated by an overbearing mandarin is not a very edifying one. Still, his impotence is a fact, and some months ago the Hon. T. G. Grosvenor, Secretary ut Legation in Peking, went down to straighten things. He seems, however, to have fared oven worse than the Consul, for we learn that when he
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.