《近代中国对外关系史 The History of Modern China's Foreign Relations》课程教学资源（阅读材料）CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY（1843 -1938）

32 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM.TREATY TARIFF 33 Foochow the Taotai refused to receive duties in Mexican do and in consequence the American Consul permitted American tendent of trade and Plenipotentiary for Great Britain,had vessels to clear without the Customs grand chop.The Taotai foreseen this difficulty,and in the unratified Treaty of finally agreed to accept duties in Mexican dollars at two per cent Chuenpi of January,18411 with Keshen ()the Imperial discount,and the withheld duties,both on American and British Commissioner,had agreed that "All just charges and duties owned consignments by these vessels were paid up.1 The to the [Chinese]Empire upon the commerce carried on Governors General of Fukien and Chekiang submitted a memorial there [i.e.,the ceded island of Hongkong,are]to be paid as to the Emperor suggesting that Mexican dollars should be accept- if the trade were conducted at Whampoa."In order also to ed when tendered in payment of Customs duties,and the reassure Chinese merchants that they would not be subjected. Emperor signified his approval.2 Meltage fees and premia on on behalf of the British Crown,to trade charges Elliot.had sycee and dollars were not,however,the only drawbacks that duty- further announced by proclamation on 1st February,18412 that payers,after the signing of the early treaties,had to contend with. "Chinese ships and merchants resorting to the port of Hongkong At some ports no official assayer was available,so that sycee for purposes of trade are hereby exempted,in the name of tendered in payment of duty could be declared to be not up to the Queen of England,from charge or duty of any kind to the standard,and make-up claimed accordingly.At other places the British Government."This convention,however,was disavowed weights used by the Customs bankers were not in exact accordance by the Emperor,and the Imperial Commissioner re-called in with treaty requirements,or the balances were of a nature that disgrace for having consented by it to the cession of Chinese would have been described by a Hebrew prophet as an abomination territory.s Before it could be known,however,that ratification to the Lord.Then,too,there was the difference between receiving would be withheld,the British had already,on 29th January, and paying rates,enforced at all Government treasuries and all 1841,4 taken formal possession of the island of Hongkong,and banks,and varying from a quarter to a half of one per cent. had begun immediately to develop it as a place of residence and Obviously the dice continued to be loaded against the duty-payer. of future trade as well as a base for further military operations. $7.Although Sir Henry had "nio predilection The renewal of hostilities in February that year served to em- Cession of Hongkong to for raising a British colony at Hongkong or at phasise the value of the place,and as the British home authorities Great Britain any other place in China,"military necessity on hearing of the acquisition and occupation of the island did not and its status compelled him to change his mind,and to declare repudiate,although they censured,Elliot's action in this respect, as a free port raises question that "we must retain at least one such position it follows that they tacitly for the time being confirmed that action, of protection of under our fag and sole authority."a The cession even though the cession had not been ratified by the Emperor.5 Chinese revenue. Measuresof Hongkong,however,to the British as a place 1F.O.17/47:Elliot to Palmerston,desp.No.5,21st January,1841. Ch.Rep.Vol,X;1841,p.3,D.119, adopted to this where they might "careen and refit their ships 2 F.O.17/47:Elliot to Palmerston,desp.No.7,13th February,1841. end.Failure of these measures.when required,and keep stores for that purpose" Ch.Rep.Vol.X;1841,p.64. raised the question which after events have proved 3 Vide Memorial of Iliang,Governor of Kwangtung,and Imperial Edict to the Grand Secretariat in道光朝譬排克称始末，Vol,23,pp,25 also to be of vital importance to China,namely what arrangements B.P.P.Correspondence relative to Military Operations in China.1843,p.14. should be made for the protection of China's revenue,in view 4F.O.17/47:Elliot to Palmerston,desp.No.5,21st January,1841. of the fact that the island,by notification of 7th June 18415 Sir Edward Belcher,R.N..C.B.:Narrative of a Voyage round the World performed in H.M.S.Sulphur during the years 1836-1842,including details had already been declared by the British authorities as a of the Naval Operations in China from December 1840 to November 1842; free port.Captain Charles Elliot,at that time Chief Superin- 2 vols.London,1843.Vol.II,pp.147-148. 5 F.O.228/18:Palmerston to Elliot,desp.No.9,14th May:1841. 1F.O.228/245:Bowring to Clarendon,desp.No.18,20th January,1858, 6"It appears to Her Majesty's Government that the island of Hongkong and desp.No.38,12th February,1858.F.O.17/277:Elgin to Clarendon: ought to be retained."Lord Palmerston to Sir Henry Pottinger;5th June, desp.No.101,26th December,1857. 1841.Morse op.cit.,Vol.1,p.661.When giving instructions to the 2 F.O.228/245:Bowring to Clarendon,desp.No.29,8th February,1858. Elliots in February 1840 Lord Palmerston had pointed out the desirability 3 F.O.228/18:Pottinger to Palmerston;desp.No.8,20th May,1842. of taking possession of an island or islands on the China coast,and had Treaty of Nanking;Article III. stated that instead of the cession of such an island the British Government 5Ch.Rep.Vol.X.1841,p.350. would be prepared to accept a treaty guaranteeing security and freedom of commerce.Morse op.cit.,Vol.1,p.628;p.638

32 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY Foochow the Taotai refused to receive duties in Mexican d". and in consequence the American Consul permitted American vessels to clear without the Customs grand' chop. The Taotai finally agreed to accept duties in Mexican dollars at two per cent discount, and the withheld duties, both on American and British owned consignments by these vessels were paid up'! 'I'he Governors General of Fukien and Chekiang submitted a memorial . to the Emperor suggesting that Mexican dollars should be accept￾ed when tendered in payment of Customs duties, and the Emperor signified his approval,2 Meltage fees and' premia on sycee and dollars were not, however, the only drawbacks that duty￾payers, after the signing of the early treaties, had to contend wit.h. At some ports no official assayer was available, so that sycee tendered in payment of duty could be declared to be not up to standard,and make-up claimed accordingly. At other places the weights used by the Customs bankers were not in exact accordance with treaty requirements, or the balances were of a nature that would have been described by a Hebrew prophet as an abomination to the Lord. Then, too, there was the difference between receiving and paying rates, enforced at all Government treasuries and all banks, and vai'ying from a quarter to a h~lf of one per cent. Obviously the dice continued to be loaded against the duty-payer. § 7. Although Sir Henry had "rio predilection Cession of for raising a British colony at Hongkong or at Honglwng to Great Britain any other place in China," military necessity and its status compelled him to change his mind and to declare a~ a free port ,,' . . .' '.. . 'raIses question .that we must retam at least one such pOSItIOn of .protection of under our flag and sole authority."3 The cessi'on Chmese revenue. ' " Measures of Hongkong, h6wever, to the British as a place adopted .to this where they might "careen and refit their ships end. Failure of. ' , these measures. when reqUIred, and keep. stores for that purpose"4 raised the question which after events have proved to be of vital importance to China, namely what arrangements . should be made for the protection of China's revenue, in view of the fact that the island, by notification of 7th' June 18415 had already been declared by the British authorities as a free port. • Captain Charles Elliot, at that time Chief Sup erin- 1 F,p. 228/245: Bowring to Clarendon, desp. No. 18, 20th January, 1858, ' and desp. No. 38, 12th February, 1858. F.O. 17/277: Elgin to Clarendon: desp. No. 101, 26th December, 1857. 2 F.O. 228/245: Bowring to Clarendon, desp. No. 29, 8th February, 1858. 3 F.O. 228/18: pottinger to Palmexston; desp. No.8, 20th May, 1842. 4 Treaty of Nanking; Article III. 5 Ch. Jtep; Vol. X. 1841, p. 350. THE FIVE PER CENT AD V ADO REM TREATY TARIFF 33 tendent of trade and Plenipotentiary for Great Britain, had foreseen this difficulty, and in the unratified Treaty of Chuenpi of January, 18411 with Keshen (1..1 ~), the Imperial Qommissioner, had agreed that "All just charges and duties to the [Chinese] Empire upon the commerce carried on there [i.e., the ceded island of Hongkong, are] to be paid as if the trade were conducted atWhampoa." In order also to reassure Chinese merchants that they would not be subjected, on behalf of the British Crown, to trade charges Elliot. had, further announced by proclamation on 1st February, 18412 that "Chinese ships and merchants resorting to the port of Hongkong for purposes of trade are hereby exempteq, in the name of the Queen of England, from charge or duty of any kind to the British Government." This convention, however; was disavowed by the Emperor, and the Imperial Commissioner re-called in disgrace for having consented by it to the cession of Chinese territory.s Before it could, be known, however, that ratification would be withheld, the British had already, on 29th January, 1841,4 taken formal possession of the island of Hongkong, and had begun immediately to develop it as a place of residence and of future trade as well as a base for further military operations. The renewal of hostilities in February that year served to em￾phasise the value of the place, and as the British home authorities on hearing of the acquisition and occupation of the island did not repudiate, although they censured,s Elliot's action in this respect, it follows thatthey tacitly for the time being confirmed that action, even though the cession had not been ratified by the Emperor.s 1 F.O. 17/47: E'lliot to Paimerston, desp. No.5, 21st January, 1841.' Ch. Rep. Vol. X; 1841, p. 63, p. 119. • 2 F.O., 17/47: Elliot to Palmerston, desp. No.7, 13th February, 1841. Ch. Rep. Vol. X; 1841, p. 64. 3 Vide Memorial of Iliang, Governor of Kwangtung, and Imperial Edict to the Grand Secretariat in lIl: 1(:. :fJl !l!lll''ol );If :f:ir ~fi 7!;:. Vol. 23, pp. 2-5; also B.P'.P. Correspondence relative to Military Opemtions in China. 1843, p. 14 . 4 F.O. 17/47: Elliot to Palmerston, desp. No.5, 21st January, 1841- Sir Edward Belcher, R.N., C.B.: Narrative of a Voyage round the World performed in H.M.S. Sulphur during the yea1'S 1836-1842,including details of t,he Naval Operations in China from Dfcembe1' 1840 to November 1842; 2 vols. London, 1843. Vol. II, pp. 147-148. 5 F.O. 228/18: Palmerston to Elliot, desp. No.9, 14th May, 184'1. 6 "It appears to Her Majesty's Government that the island of Hongkong ought to be retained." Lord Palmerston to Sir Henry Pottinger,; 5th June, 1841. Morse op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 661. When gi"ing instructions to the Elliots in February 1840 Lord Palmerston had pointed out the desirability of taking possession of an island or islands on the China coast, and had stated that instead of the cession of such an island the British Government would be prepared to accept a treaty guaranteeing security and freedom of commerce. Morse op. cit., Vol. 1, p: 628; p. 638. ,,' I 3

喝 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY T FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 35 Free trade principles,however,as well as distrust of Chinese Customs methods and levies were too deeply ingrained in China.In the meantime the Plenipotentiary issued a notification the British trading community to permit of the establishment on the 16th February 1842 that,pending Her Majesty's pleasure, on the island of an agency for the collecting of Chinese Hongkong and Chusan were to be considered as free ports.1 Customs dues and duties.The clause,therefore,of the un- Sir Henry Pottinger,however,soon found that local feeling ratified Treaty of Chuenpi,which points to some such arrange- and opinion among the British traders were against any arrange- ment,speedily became a dead letter.Then followed Elliot's ment by which.Chinese Customs officials should be permitted official notification of 7th June,1841 declaring Hongkong to be to function on the ceded island of Hongkong for the collecting a free port,at which there would be no charges on imports on China's behalf of dues and duties from foreign vessels trading and exports payable to the British Government,nothing being with the newly opened treaty ports.2 It was thought that said about the "just charges and duties"payable to China. enough had been done to aid China in the suppression of smug- That such a declaration placed China in a most disadvantageous gling by British vessels (1)by the British Government's placing position was recognized even by Lord Palmerston,whose strong of a Consul at each of these ports "to strictly watch over and pro-British attitude no one can question.It amounted almost carefully scrutinize the conduct of all persons being British to an open challenge of China's revenue rights,for in those subjects trading under his superintendence,"with strict instruc- days of mercantile buccaneering everyone knew that,while the tions to apprise instantly the Chinese authorities of any British Government could not and would not support clandestine smuggling transactions coming to his knowledge,and(2)by the trading,yet the arbitrary opening of the free port on China's issue of a proclamation to all British merchants peremptorily own coast in close proximity to large trading centres could not informing them that as a fair and regular tariff was now in but lend facilities to those who were bent on evasion of China's force all smuggling transactions must cease.a As,however, dues and duties.Palmerston clearly understood the situation, British Consular and other authorities had no jurisdiction over for although he censured Elliot severely for not carrying out Chinese subjects and Chinese vessels,and as the presence of orders,yet when giving instructions to Sir Henry Pottinger, the free port of Hongkong,a huge depot of duty-free goods, who had been chosen to replace Elliot,he drew the attention would afford Chinese merchants unlimited opportunities of the departing Envoy to specific instances in Europe where of illicit trade,especially in opium,it was recognized that in all fairness some arrangement would have to be made which the practice obtained of one Power allowing Customs duties to would enable China to protect her revenue rights,and remove be collected in its territory by the agents of another Power on the reproach that the British by retaining Hongkong as a free behalf of the Government.of the latter,and admitted that in the case of Hongkong "British commerce might be much en- port were deliberately providing facilities for Chinese merchants couraged,if goods which had once been landed at Hongkong could and shipowners to flout their own Government and to carry on be carried from thence to any Chinese port without being liable clandestine trade.Accordingly,in the Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai it was stipulated (1)that Chinese vessels to any further payment on account of duty;and the Chinese trading between the treaty ports and Hongkong must be pro- Custom House officers in Hongkong would be less likely than vided with a special pass,valid for one trip only,to be issued the Chinese authorities at other ports to attempt to levy exorbi- tant and illegal duties."The final settlement of this issue by the Customs authorities at the port from which the vessel cleared for Hongkong;(2).that a British official would be was left in the hands of the Plenipotentiary,with the proviso appointed at Hongkong to examine the registers and passes of that whatever arrangement should finally be made it was to all Chinese vessels;(3)that any Chinese vessel found without be embodied in a treaty properly ratified by the Emperor of a pass or register would be considered as an unauthorized or 1F.O.228/18;Palmerston to Elliot;desp.No.7,3rd May,1841;desp. No.9,14 th May,,1841. 1F.O.228/18;Pottinger to Palmerston;desp.No.38,3rd September, 1842.Hongkong Gazette,Vol.1,No.10,26th Fobruary,1842. 2F.O.17/51;Palmerston to Pottinger,desp.No.16,31st May,1841; 2B.P.P.Papers relating to the Colony of Hongkong;1857;p.36. quoted in Morse,op.cit.,Vol.1;p.658. 3 Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai (1843);Article XII.Ch.Rep. Vcl.XII;1843;p.224

34 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY Free trade principles, however, as well as distrust of Chinese Customs methods and levies were too deeply ingrained in the British trading community to permit of the establishment on the island of an agency \for the collecting of Chinese Customs dues and duties. The clause, ;therefore, of the un￾ratified Treaty of Chuenpi, which points to· some such arrange￾ment, speedily became a dead letter. Then followed Elliot's official notification of 7th June, 1841 declaring Hongkong to be a free port, at which there would be no charges on imports and exports payable to the British Government, nothing being said about the "just charges and duties" payable to China. That such a declaration placed China in a most disadvantageous position was recognized even by Lord Palmerston, whose strong pro-British attitude no one can question. It amounted almost to an open challenge of China's revenue rights, for in those days of mercantile buccaneering everyone knew that, while the British Government could not and would not support clandestine trading, yet the arbitrary opening of the free port on China's own coast in 'close proximity to large trading centres could not but lend facilities to those who were bent on evasion of China's . du.es and duties. Palmerston clearly understood the situation, for although he censured Elliot severely for not carrying out orders,l yet when giving instructions to Sir Henry Pottinger, who had been chosen to replace Elliot, he drew the attention of the departing Envoy to specific instances in Europe where the practice obtained of one Power allowing Customs duties to be collected in its territory by the agents of another Power on behalf of the Government. of the latter, and admitted· that in the case of Hongkong "British commerce might be much en￾couraged, if goods which had once been landed at Hongkong could be carried from thence to any Chinese port without being liable to any further payment on account of duty; and the Chinese Custom House officers in Hongkong would be less likely than the Chinese authorities at other ports to attempt to levy exorbi￾tant and illegal duties."2 The final settlement of this issue was left in the hands of the Plenipotentiary, with the proviso that whatever arrangement should fimilly be made it was to be embodied in a treaty properly ratified by the Emperor of 1 F.O. 228/18; Palmerston to Elliot; desp. No.7 3rd May 1841' desp No.9, 14th May, 1841. " , . 2 F.O. 17/51; Palmerston to Pottinger, desp. No. 16, 31st May, 1841; quoted in Morse, op. cit., Vol. 1; p. 658. TL FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 35 China, lI;the meantime the Plenipotentiary issued a notification on the 16th February 1842 that, pending Her Majesty's pleasure, Hongkong and Chusan were to· be considered as free ports. 1 Sir Henry Pottinger, however, soon found that .local feeling and opinion among the British traders were against any arrange￾ment by ,which· Chinese Customs' officials should be permitted to function on the ceded island of Hongkong for the collecting on China's behalf of dues and duties from foreign vessels trading with the newly opened treaty ports.2 It was thought that enough had been done to aid China in the suppression of smug￾gling by British vessels (1) by the British Government's placing of a Consul at each of these ports "to strictly watch over and carefnlly scrutinize the conduct of all persons being British subjects trading under his superintendence," with strict instruc￾tions to apprise instantly the Chinese authorities of any smuggling transactions coming to his knowledge,. and (2) by the issue of a proclamation to all British merchants peremptorily informing them that as a' fair and regular tariff was now in force all smuggling transactions must cease,3 As, however, British Consular and other authorities had no jurisdiction over Chinese subjects and Chinese vessels, and as the presence of the free port of Hongkong, a huge depot of duty-free goods, would afford Chinese merchants unlimited opportunities of illicit trade, especially in opium, it was recognized that in all fairness some arrangement would have to be made which would enable China to protect her revenue rights, and remove the reproach that the British by retaining Hongkong as a free port were deliberately providing facilities for Chinese merchants and shipowners to flout their own Government and to carryon clandestine trade. Accordingly, in the Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai it was stipulated (1) that Chinese vessels trading between the treaty ports and Hongkong must be pro￾vided with a special pass, valid for one trip only, to be issued by the Customs authorities at the port from which the vessel cleared for Hongkong; (2). that a British official would be appointed at Hongkong to examine the registers and passes of all Chinese vessels; (3) that any Chinese vessel found without a pass or register would be considered as an unauthorized or 1 F.O, 228/18; Pottinger to Palmerston; desp. No. 38, 3rd September, 1842. Hongkong Gazette, Vol. 1., No. 10, 26th February, 1842. 2 B.P.P. Papers relating to the Colony of Hongkong; 1857; p. 36. 3 Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai (1843); Article XII. Ch. Rep. Vol. XII; 1843; p. 224

36 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF .37 smuggling vessel,would not be allowed to trade,and would became a dead letter.The foreign inspectorate of Customs had be reported to the Chinese authorities;(4)that the Customs not yet been established,and there was no centralizing and authorities at each port should render to Canton a monthly coordinating Customs organization to see that the Customs return of the passes granted to Chinese vessels proceeding to officials at the treaty ports should try to make the arrangement Hongkong,with details of the cargoes carried,that these separate work.It was natural too that the Chinese authorities should port returns should every month be embodied in one return not actively encourage trade in native bottoms between the new sent to the proper British official in Hongkong,and that similarly treaty ports,opened at the point of the bayonet,and this foreign the British official in Hongkong 'should render similar returns free port on their own coast,which had been torn from them to the Chinese authorities at Canton of all Chinese vessels by force.There is good evidence that they discouraged it by arriving at and departing from Hongkong with details of their charging heavy fees for the passes required by the treaty. cargoes,such returns to be transmitted by the Canton authorities But the Hongkong officials and trading community were equally to the Customs officials at the ports concerned.It is significant shortsighted.In spite of the lack of encouragement from the that in the Chinese,but not the English,text of Article XIII Chinese authorities,trade in Chinese vessels between the treaty of this Hoomunchai treaty there is a final clause which rules ports and Hongkong did spring up,and probably,if it had been that Chinese merchants residing at non-treaty ports in the given a fair chance,would have grown and prospered with the provinces of Canton,Fukien,Kiangsu,and Chekiang are not develepment of the colony.It was killed for the time being, to be permitted to ask for passes for vessels to trade between however,partly by the attitude of the Chinese authorities,partly such non-treaty ports and Hongkong,and if any vessel should by the determined opposition of the British traders who strongly violate this ruling the British official and the Kowloon magis- objected to the using of the Hongkong harbour police as agents trate are jointly to investigate the case and report.The fact for the protection of China's revenue,partly by the exactions that this clause does not appear in the English text indicates of these police,and of the agents of the opium farmer,and clearly the desire of the Chinese authorities at that time to partly by the cramping fiscal policy of the second governor of exclude even Chinese vessels from the privilege of trading the colony,Sir John F.Davis,whobelieved in raising revenue between Hongkong and ports not opened to foreign trade.? by all manner of restrictive fees,auction duties,and farming These treaty stipulations,which with good.will and effective monopolies,a policy which during the early years of the colony organization on each side could have been made a success,soon effectively strangled trade in native vessels.1 By the spring of 1847 when the Select Committee of the British House of Com- 1 Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai (1843);Articles XIII,XIV, mons was in session,this system of passes for Chinese vessels and XVI."The only articles of the Treaty that seem to me to require the had already fallen into disuse. smallest explanation are XIII,XIV and XVI.The former is obviously introduced by the Imperial Commissioner with the object of checking smuggling,and I was very glad to aceede to any plan for doing so. $8.There are important differences?between thought it better to consent to the provisions of the other two articles (XIV Differences between the the British Treaty of Nanking of 1842 and the and XVI)than to have any officer on the part of the Chinese Government British,the stationed at Hongkong-at least for a time-in the light of a Consul,which American Treaty of Wanghea of 1844,such as American,and was the only other alternative that occurred to me besides the one I have the Frehch the insertion in the latter of more clearly defined adopted to meet the Imperial Commissioner's wishes.The duty provided treaty tariff extraterritoriality clauses (Articles XXI and for by these articles will I should imagine,be easily hereafter discharged schedules. without difficulty or any great degree of trouble,by a single Chinese XXV),and of clauses stipulating that vessels linguist in our service under the guidance and supervision of the future departing within 48 hours without having broken bulk are not Reporter of External and Internal Commerce and Collector of Sea Duties, liable to tonnage dues (Article X),that vessels under 150 tons and until such an Offcer shall be sppointed to the Colony,I intend to entrust it to the Harbour Master's Department":F.O.17/70:Pottinger to Aberdeen;desp.No.148;8rd November,1843. 1 B.P.P.Report from the Select Committee on Commereial Relations with China。1847;pp.159,161,203,250-252,385,and451. 2 Sir John Davis considered this clause in the Chinese text as "little better than an act of fraud on the part of the Chinese regotiators." 2 For an examination of these differences,drawn up by the American F.O.228/67:Davis to Palmerston,desp.No.142,11th August,1847.Davis negotiator himself,vide Mr.Cushing's despatch transmitting the treaty to however,brings forward no proof for this sweaping assertion. the U.S.A.Seeretary of State,cited in Ch.Rep.Vol.XIV,1845,pp.555-557

3.6 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY smuggling vessel, would not be allowed to trade,. and would be reported to the Chinese authorities; (4) that the Customs authorities at each port should render to Canton a monthly return of the passes granted to Chinese vessels proceeding to Hongkong, with details of the cargoes carrieci, that these separate port returns should every month be~ embodied in one return sent to, the propex:British official in Hongkong, and that simillirly the British official in Hongkong 'should render similar returns to the Chinese authorities at Canton 6f all Chinese· vessels arriving at and departing from Hongkong with details of their ,cargoes, such returns to be transmitted by the 'Canton authorities tothe Custom!! officials at the ports concerned.1 It is significant that in the Chinese, but not the .English:, text of Article XIII of this Hoomunchai treaty there is a final clause which rules that Chinese merchants residing at non-treaty ports in the provinces of Canton, ~ Fukien, Kiangsu, and Chekiang are not to be permitted to ask for passes for vessels to trade between such non-treaty ports and Hongkong, and if any vessel should violate this ruling ,the British official and the ~Kowloon magis￾trate are jointly to investigate the case and report. The fact that this clause does not appear in the English text indicates clearly the desire of the Chinese authorities' at that time to exclude' even Chinese vessels from the privilege of trading between Hongkong and ports not opened to foreign trade.2 These treaty stipUlations, which with good will and effective organization on each side could have been made a .success, soon 1 Supplementary Treaty of Hoomnnchai (1843); Articles XIII XIV and XVI. "The only articles of the Treaty that seem to me to reqn'ire th; ~malle8t explanation are· XIII, XIV and XVI. The former is obviously mtrodu~ed . by the Imperial Commiss.ioner with the object of checking smuggl1J:~g, and I was very, glad to accede to any plan for doing so. I thought It better to consent to the provisions of, the other two articles (XIV and. XVI) than to have any officer on the part of the Chinese Government .statIOned at Rongkong-at least for a time-in the light of a Consul which was the only other alternative that occurred, to me besides the one' I have adopted to meet, the ID:1perial ComJ?issi?ner's wishes. The duty provided fO.r by these artIcles WIll I should q;uagme, be easily l.lereafter discharged ~Ith~ut .dlfficulty o~ any great degree of trouble, by a single Chinese ImgUlst m our servIce under the guidance and supervision of the fut'lre Reporte~ of External and Internal Commerce and Collector of Sea Duties, and unt~1 such an Officer shall be appointed to the Colony, I intend to entrust It to the Harbour Master's Department": F,O. 17/70: Pottinger to Aberdeen; desp. No. 143; 3rd November, 1843. 2 Sir John Davis considered thiscluuse ill the· Chinese text as "little better than an ~ct of fraud on the part of the Chinese n'egotiators," F.O. 228/67: DaVIS to Palmerstou, desp. No. 142, 11th August, 1847. Davis however,brmgs forward no proof for this sweeping assertion. 'fRE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 37 became a dead letter. The foreign inspectorate of Customs had not yet been established, and there was no centralizing and coordinating Customs organization to see that the Customs officials at the treaty ports should try to make the arrangement work. It was natural too that the Chinese authorities should not actively encourage trade in native bottoms between the new treaty ports, opened at the point of the bayonet, and this foreign free port on their own coast, which· had been torn from them by force. There is good evidence that they discouraged it by charging heavy fees for the passes required by the treaty. But the Hongkong officials and trading community were equally shortsighted. In spite of the lack of encouragement from. the Chinese authorities, trade in Chinese vessels- between the ,treaty ports andHongkong did spring up, and probably, if it had been given a fair chance, ,would have grown and prospered with the develepment of the colony. It was killed for the time being, however, partly by the attitude of the Chinese authorities, partly by the determined opposition of the British traders who strongly objected to the using of the Hongkong harbour police as agents for. the, protection of China's revenue, partly by the exactions of these police, and of the' agents of the opium farmer, and partly by the cramping fiscal policy of the second governor of the colony, Sir John F. Davis, ,who ,believed in raising revenue by all manner of restrictive fees, auction duties, and farming monopolies, a policy which during the early years of the colony effectively strangled trade in native vessels~l By the spring of 1847 when the Select Committee of the British House of Com￾mons was in session,this system of passes for Chinese vessels had already fallen into disuse, . Differences between the British, the American. and the· French treaty tariff schedules. § 8. There are impurtant differences2 between the British Treaty of Nanking of 1842 and the American Treaty of Wang he a of 1844, such as the insertion in the latter of more clearly defined extraterritoriality clauses (Articles XXI and XXV), and of clauses stipulating. that vessels departing within 48 hours without having· broken bulk are not liable to tonnage dues (Article X), that vessels under 150 tons 1 RP.P. Report from the Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China. 1847; pp. 159, .161, 203, 250-252, 385, and 451. 2 For an examination of these differences, drawn up by the American negotiator himself, vide Mr, Cushing's despatch transmitting the treaty ·to the U.S.A. Secretary of State, cited in Ch. Rep. Vo!' XIV, 1845, pp, 555-557~

THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 39 38 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY fixed by the British and the American tariffs.By virtue of are to pay only one mace per ton in tonnage dues (Article VI), that vessels may proceed with the residue of their import cargo the most favoured nation clause these reduced rates of both the American and the French tariffs were applicable also to British from one treaty port to another without second payment of tonnage dues (Article VI),that imports having paid duty at importations of the articles concerned.1 The rates for transit one port may be sent duty-free to another (Article XX),and dues,according to the French treaty,were to be the same as those accepted by both the British and the American treaties, that citizens of the.United States trading in opium or any other but the French negotiators thought it wise to add the saving contraband should be dealt with by the Chinese Government clause,which does not appear in the other two treaties,that without the protection of the Government of the United States (Article XXXIII).None of these differences,however,relate such dues shall not be liable to any future increase.2 It is thus abundantly clear that the tariffs sanctioned by China's three to the tariff rates.In fact,the tariff of the American treaty, early treaties with Great Britain,America and France were so far as the rates are concerned,is,with the single exception not constructed on a strict five per cent ad valorem basis,but of the import rate for lead,which is reduced from Tls.0.40 were evolved from the officially authorized tariffs which had per picul of the British to Tis.0.280 per picul,an exact repro- originally been drawn up by the Chinese authorities themselves, duction of the British one,although it differs from the latter and which were actually in force when the new tariff came to (a)in following the Chinese arrangement of grouping the be worked out. articles of trade into appropriate classes,(b)in specifying that ex ry picul of foreign ginseng imported should be considered $9.As already indicated there was cne striking composed of one-fifth superior quality and four-fifths inferior Nanking treaty omission from the early treaties with Great vides for yuality,and (c)in the definite mention of opium as being con- rConsuiar Britain.All the world knows it was the con- traband.The rates for transit dues were also to be the same intervention in traband trade in opium which played so large prevention of as those agreed upon by the British treaty,the article on this smuggling. a part in bringing on the war of 1839-1842 by subject stipulating that "imported goods on their re-sale which the first five treaty ports were opened to or transit in any part of the Empire shall be subject to the foreign trade.In spite of Imperial edicts absolutely for- imposition of no other duty than they are accustomed to pay bidding the importation of the drug,and in spite of the fact at the date of this treaty."The tariff.appended to the French that since the middle of the eighteenth century up to the signing Treaty of Whampoa,1844,also,so far as export rates are of the Treaty of Nanking foreign trade was permitted at Canton concerned,followed faithfully the British treaty tariff,but ar- alone,lawless traders,who in many cases were more buccaneerg ranges the articles specified as in the American tariff.There are than merchants,had pushed right up the coast of China-even however,a few characteristic differences in the import rates. as far as the Liaotung peninsula-carrying on wherever the Cloves are divided into three qualities instead of two,the rate conditions were favourable an active smuggling trade,mostly of the first being the same as in the British and the American in opium,but also in foreign piece goods and sundries as well tariffs,while the rate for the second is one tael per picul,and as native produce.Apart from the imposing of an indemnity for the third quality two mace five candareens per picul. for the destruction of the opium now ordered this contraband Canvas is rated at one mace per piece instead of five mace,and trade in opium-to the surprise of many Chinese who thought the rates on wines are reduced to exactly one-fifth of those that the victors would have insisted on legalizing it-was not dealt with by the Treaties of Nanking and Hoomunchai.Sir i The import of this article,used for lining tea chests,was practically a monopoly in the hands of American traders.Mr.Cushing,the American 1 Art.XIII of Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai 1843;Treaties Plenipotentiary,was of opinion that four mace a picul was an exorbitant and Conventions,op.cit.,Vol.I,p.393. rate.R.Montgomery Martin;China,Political,Commereial,and Social, .2"Lesquels droits ne seront susceptibles d'aucune augmentation future" in an Official Report to Hfer Majesty's Government.2 Vols.London,1847 Vol.1,p.427. Art.VII,French Treaty of Whampoa,1844.Treaties and Conventions, op.cit.,Vol.I,p.?74. 3 Art.XIII.American Treaty of Wanghea,1844.Treatiea,Conven- tions,ete.,between China and Foreign States,.p.682.Customs publications. 3 Auber;op.cit.,pp.359-361.Davis;op.cit.Vol.1,pp.116-117.Ch. Rep.Vol.3;February,1884;p.474. 2nd Edition,Shanghai,1917

38 CHINA'S STRUGGLE'FOR'TARIFF AUTONOMY are to pay only one mace per ton in tonnage dues (Article VI), that vessels may proceed with the residue of their import cargo from one treaty port to another without second payment of tonnage dues (Article VI), that imports having paid duty at one port may be sent duty-free to another (Article XX), and that citizens of the. United States trading in opium or any other contraband should be dealt with by the Chinese Government without the protection of the Government of the United States (Article XXXIII). N one of these aifferences, however, 'relate to the tariff rates. In fact, the tariff of the American treaty, so far as the rates are concerned, is, with the single exception of the import rate for lead,l which is reduced from TIs. 0040 per pieul of the British to TIs. 0.280 per picul, an exact repro￾duction of the British one, although it differs from the latter (a) in following the Chinese arrangement of grouping the articles of trade into appropriate classes, (b) in specifying that e~', ,fry picul of foreign ginseng imported should be considered composed of one-fifth superior quality and four-fifths inferior quality, and (c) in the definite mention of opium as being con- .traband. The rates for transit dues were also to be the same as those agreed upon by the British treaty, the article on this subject stipulating that "imported goods on their· re-sale or transit in any part of the Empire shall be subject to the 'imposition of no other duty than they are accustomed to pay at the date of this treaty."2 The tariff, appended to the French Treaty of Whampoa, 1844, also, so far as export rates are concerned, followed faithfully the British treaty tariff, but ar￾ranges the articles specified as in the American tariff. There are however,. a' few characteristic differences in the import rates. Cloves are divided into three qualities instead of two, the rate of the first being the same as in the British and the American tariffs whilei'the rate for the second is one tael per picul, and for the third quality two mace five candareens per picul. Canvas is rated' at one mace per piece instead of five mace, and the rates '.on wine'S are reduced to exactly one-fifth of those 1 The import of this article, used for lining tea chests, was practically Ii monopoly in the hands of American traders. Mr. Cushing, the American Plenipotent.iary, was of opinion that four mace a pieul was an exorbitant rate. R. Montgomery Martin; China, Political, Commercia!, and S,ocial, in an Official Report to "Her Maiesty's Government. 2 Vols. London, 1847, Vol. 1; p. 427. 2 Art. jun. American Treaty of Wanghea, 1844. Treaties, Conven￾tions, etc., between China and Foreign State~,.p. 68.2. Customs publications. 2nd Edition, Shanghai, 1917. THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 39 fixed by the British and the American tariffs. By virtue pf the most favoured nation clause these reduced rates of both the American and the French tariffs were applicable also to British importations of the articlesconcerned.1 The rates for transit dues according to the French treaty, were to be the same as thos~ accepted by both the British and the American treaties, but the French negotiators thought it wise to add the saving clause which does not appear in the other two treaties, that such dues shall not be liable to any future increase.2 It is thus abundantly clear that the tariffs sanctioned by China's three early treaties with Great Britain, America and Franc~ were not constructed on Ii strict five per cent ad valorem baSIS, but were' evolved from the officially authorize<J tariffs which had originally been drawn up by the Chinese authorities them'selves, and which were actually in force when the new tariff. came to be worked out. S 9. As already indicated there was cne striking, Nanking treaty omission from the early treaties with Greii"t I!r!'vides for Britain. All the world knows it was the con- BntIsh Consular. . ... intervention in traband trade III opIUm whIch played so large preventi,?n of a part in bringing on the war of 1839-1842 by smugglmg. d which the first five treaty ports Were opene to foreign trade. In spite of Imperial edicts absolutely for￾bidding the importation of the drug, and in spite of the fact that since the middle of the eighteenth century up to the signing of the Treaty of Nanking foreign trade was permitted at Canton alone, lawless traders, who in many cases were more buccaneers than merchants, had pushed right up the coast .of China-even as far as the Liaotung peninsula3-carrying on wherever the conditions were favQurable an active smuggling trade, mostly in opium, but also in foreign piece goods and sun\iries as well as native produce. Apart from the imposing of an indemnity for the destruction of the opium now ordered this contraband trade in opium-to the surprise of many Chinese who thought that the victors would have insisted on legalizing it-was not dealt with by the Treaties of Nanking and Hoomunchai. Sir 1 Art. XIII of Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai 1843; Treaties and Conventions, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 393. , 2 "Lesquels droits ne seront susceptibles d'aucllne augmentation futUl'e" Art. VII, French Treaty of Whampoa, 1844. Treaties and Conventions, op. cit., Vol. I, p. '774, 3 Autler; op. cit., Pl'. 359-361. Davis; op. cit. Vol. 1, pp. 116-117. Ch. Rep. Vol. 3; February, 1834; p. 474

40 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 41 Henry Pottinger,however,as we have seen,made it unmistake- gency directly compromising the national honour,dignity,and ably clear by proclamation that the trade remained illegal good faith in the estimation of the Government of China,and according to the laws of China,and that any British merchant in the eyes'of all other nations."The Treaties of Nanking engaging in that trade in China would receive no protection in and of Hoomunchai bring out very clearly the existence of this that respect from the British Government.!On the smuggling smuggling trade,and lay down some of the preventive measures of legitimate articles of trade he was no less explicit.On this that were to be put into force for its suppression.Much to the subject he issued two proclamations,one on 15th April 18432 disgust of some of the British merchants these preventive mea- and the other on 22nd July of the same year,when announcing sures were not to be taken by the Chinese authorities alone. the conclusion of the Treaty of Hoomunchai.In the former he By Article II of the Treaty of Nanking-an article which,as we deprecates "the shameless and disreputable system of whole- have seen,has no parallel in either the American Treaty of sale smuggling-a system which were it overlooked and per- Wanghea or the French Treaty of Whampoa-and by regulation mitted,would not only speedily sap and destroy the existing 15 of the General Regulations of Trade forming part of the foundation of all legal traffic,but would render absolutely Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai,British Consuls had nugatory every exertion and arrangement that may be made, placed upon them the duty of seeing "that the just duties and or may be attempted to be made,to put such legal traffic on a other dues of the Chinese Government-are duly discharged firm,regular and respectable footing."He then adds that the by Her Britannic Majesty's subjects,"and of acting as "security Chinese authorities can count on his assistance,within the for all,British merchant ships entering any of the aforesaid terms of the treaty,in stamping out this illegal trade,and that five ports."But it was Article XII of the Treaty of Hoomunchai smugglers and their vessels would not receive protection in that crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s.That article ex- the harbour of Hongkong,-a statement which reads strangely pressed the hope that the smuggling which had flourished in in the light of after developments.In the second proclamation, the past-often with the connivance and collusion of the Custom after announcing the conclusion of the treaty and appealing House officers-would cease.It intimated that "the British to all British merchants to abide by its provisions,he proceeds Plenipotentiary will instruct the different Consuls to strictly to announce "that he is determined by every means at his dis- watch over and carefully scrutinize the conduct of all persons posal to see the provisions of the commercial treaty fulfilled by being British subjects trading under his superintendence. In all those who chose to engage in future in commerce with China; any positive instance of smuggling transactions coming to the and that in any case where he may receive well-grounded Consul's knowledge he will instantly apprise the Chinese authori- representations from Her Majesty's Consuls,or from the ties of the fact,and they will proceed to seize and confiscate Chinese authorities,that such provisions of the Commercial all goods-whatever their value or nature-that may have been treaty have been evaded (or have been attempted to be.so)he so smuggled,and will also be at liberty,if they see fit,.to will adopt most stringent and decided measures against the prohibit the ship,from which the smuggled goods were landed, offending parties,and where his present powers may not fully from trading further,and to send her away as soon as her authorize and sanction such measures as may seem to him accounts are adjusted and paid."That this article was meant fitting,he will respectfully trust that the legislature of Great to be taken seriously is evident from the instructions given by Britain will hold him indemnified for adopting them in an emer- the British Plenipotentiary in July 1848 to Mr.G.Tradescant Lay,when appointing him as Consul at Canton.On that occasion 1Ch.Rep.Vol.XII;1843;p.446.Article XXXIII of the American Treaty of Wanghea (1844)stipulates that Americans trading in opium Sir Henry Pottinger wrote:-"Should you obtain positive and shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese Government without incontrovertible proof that any British merchant ship on the being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United river has been,or is,engaged in smuggling,or evading the States of America.The import tarifs annexed to both the American and the French treaties specifically cite opium as contraband,while the tariff payment of the just dues of the Chinese Government as laid schedule attached to the British treaty makes no mention of it whatsoever. 2F.O.228/23:Pottinger to Aberdeen;enelo.No.2 in desp.No.34, 1 B.P.P.Orders,Ordinances,Rules and Regulations concerning the 17th April,1843.Ch.Rep.Vol.XII,1843,p.224. Trade in China 1847;p.6:also quoted in Ch.Rep.Vol.XII;1843;p.391

40 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY Henry Pottinger, however, as we have seen, made it unmistake￾ably clear by proclamation that the trade remained illegal accorqing to the laws of China, and that any British merchant engaging in that tra,de in China would receive no protection in that respect from the British Government.! On the smuggling of legitimate articles of trade he was no less explicit. On this subJect he· issued two proclamations, one on 15th April 18432 and the other on 22ndJuly of the same year, when announcing the conclusion of the Treaty of HoomunchaL In the former he deprecates "the shameless and disreputable system of whole￾sale smuggling-a system which were it overloohid and per￾mitted, would not only speedily sap and destroy the existing foundation of all legal traffic, but would render absolutely nugatory every exertion and ar;rangement. that may be made, or may be attempted to be made, to put such legal traffic on a firm, regular and respectable footing." He then adds that the Chinese authorities· Can count on his assistance, within the terms of the treaty, in stamping out .this iUegaltrade, and that smugglers and their vessels would not receive protection in the harbour of Hongkong,-a statement which reads strangely in the light of after developments. In the second proclamation, after announcing the conclusion of the treaty and appealing to all British merchants to abide by its provisions, he proceeds to announce "that he is determined by every means at his dis￾posal to see the provisions of the commercial treaty fulfilled by all those who chose to engage in future in commerce with China; and that in any case where he may receive well-grounded representations from Her Majesty's Consuls, or from the Chinese authorities, that such provisions of the ·Commercial treaty have been evaded (or have been attempted to be.so) he will adopt mQst stringent and decided measures against the offending parties, and where his present powers may not fully authorize and sanction such measui'es as may seem to him fitting, he will respectfully trust that the legislature of Great Britain will hold him indemnified for adopting them in an emer- 1 Ch. Rep. Vol. XII; 1843; p. 446. Article XXXIII of th~· American Treaty of W.anghea (1844) stipulates that Americans trading in opium shall be subject to be dealt with by the Chinese Government without being entitled to any countenance or protection from that of the United States of America. The import tariffs annexed to both the American and the French treaties specifically cite opium as contraband, while the tariff schedule attached to the British treaty makes no mention of it whatsoever. 2 F.O. 228/23: Pottinger to Aberdeen; enclo. No.2 in desp. No. 34, 17th April, 1843. Ch. Rep. Vol. XII, 1843, p. 224. !l'HE FIVE PER· CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 41 gency directly compromising the national honour, dignity, and good faith in the estimation of the Government of China, and in the eyes· of all other nations."l The Treaties of Nanking and of Hoomunchai bring out very clearly the existence of this smuggling trade, and lay down some of the preventive measures that were to be put into force for its suppression. Much to the disgust of some of the British merchants these preventive mea￾sures were not to be: taken by the Chinese authorities alone. By Article II of the Treaty of Nanking-an article which, as we have seen, has no parallel in either the American Treaty of Wanghea or the French Treaty of Whampoa-and by regulation 15 of the General Regulations of Trade forming part of the Supplementary Treaty of Hoomunchai, British Consuls had placed upon them the duty of seeing "that the just duties and other dues of the Chinese Government-are duly discharged by Her Britannic Majesty's subjects," and of acting as "security for all, British merchant ships entering any of the aforesaid five ports." But it was Article XII of the Treaty of Hoomunchai that crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s. That article ex￾pressed the hope that the smuggling which had flourished in the past-,-often with the connivance and collusion of the Custom House officers-would cease. It intimated that "the British Plenipotentiary will instruct the different Consuls to strictly watch over and carefully scrutinize the conduct of all persons being British subjects trading under his superintendence. In any positive instance of smuggling transactions coming to the Consul's knowledge he will instantly apprise the Chinese authori￾ties of the fact, and they will proceed to seize and confiscate all goods-whatever their value or nature-that may have been so smuggled, and will also be at liberty, if they see fit,. to prohibit the ship, from which the smuggled goods were landed, from trading further, and to send her away· as soon as her accounts are adjusted and paid." That this article was meant to be taken seriously is evident·from the instructions given by the British Plenipotentiary in July 1843 to Mr. G. Tradescant Lay, when appointing him as Consul at Canton. On that occasion Sir Henry Pottinger wrote :-"Should you obtain positive and incontrovertible proof that any British merchant ship on the river has been, or is, engaged in smuggling, or evading the payment of the just dues of the Chinese Government as laid 1 B.P.P. Orders, O"dinances, Rules and Regu.lations concerning the Trade in China 1847; p. 6: also quoted in Ch. Rep. Vol. XII; 1843; p. 391