442
Hongkong Government withdraws its consent on
account of salt clause.
Boycott of Hong kong in 1925.
( 16 )
version of the convention forwarded by the Hongkong Government with that approved by the Chinese Government the Legation found differences which it considered prejudicial to British interests. On applying to the Inspector General, Sir Francis Aglen, the British Minister discovered further that the Chinese Government had instructed Sir Francis to endeavour to secure through the Legation a number of alterations in the Hongkong version of the text. These instructions the Inspector General had decided to ignore on the ground that some of these alterations were not acceptable to the Customs and that all of them were certain to be rejected by the British Government. The Inspector General also had not been informed of the proposed postal clause, but he recognised the differences in the Chinese Government's text as corresponding to the alterations he had been asked to secure. As a way out of this tangle
the British Minister stated that he intended to take his stand on a written statement made by the Wai-chiao Pu on 12th December 1917 that the Chinese Government was prepared to accept the convention with the sole addition of the postal clause, that is, section (g) of Article V, and accordingly in September 1918 he requested officially the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs to make arrangements for the signing of the agreement.*
§ 14. Negotiations at Peking proceeded on this basis, and by the following year, thanks to the efforts of the British Minister, Sir John Jordan, and of the Inspector General, Sir Francis Aglen, the Chinese Government declared its willingness to sign the agreement with the single addition of the postal clause. The British Minister had likewise received instructions authorising him to sign; but at the last moment the Hongkong authorities stopped all further progress as they had in the meantime come to the conclusion that it would be highly inadvisable to levy any tax on salt in the Colony, or to restrict unduly its movements within the Colony. Further negotiations for the time being were ruled out, while the ever-increasing paralysis of the Central Government at Peking, which became accentuated during 1919 and 1920, and the declared independence of the Canton Government, with complete severance of relations with Peking, soon brought about a condition of affairs in which it was hopeless to expect a ratification of the proposed agreement.
§ 15. For 10 years the agreement lay dormant. They were fateful years for China, and incidentally also for Hongkong, witnessing especially through much civil strife the development and rise to power of the Kuomintang (R) and the downfall of the former Peking regime. This condition of widespread political disorder, in which the South was at open war with the North, was obviously not favourable for the further consideration of an agreement, ratification of which would require the existence of a Government recognised by all as the sole Government of China. Two events, however, having a vital bearing on the agreement took place during this domestic struggle for governmental control. The one, which emphasises the vital importance of seizing every opportunity to extend and maintain friendly relations between Hongkong and China, was the boycott of Hongkong by the Chinese, which lasted from 1st June 1925 to 10th October 1926, and which not only involved the Colony in immense losses to its shipping trade and business generally, but also caused most serious inconvenience and discomfort to
Vide Appendix I.
*