already opened by the Treaties "-in other words, there is to be a differential duty in favour of French trade between Tonquin and China at certain points of the land frontier, notwithstanding the above stipulation in the Treaty of Tien-tsin for most-favoured-nation treatment to British subjects in regard to duties.
In the Exposé des Motifs the explanation suggested is that the Chinese Government is only following as regards France the practice already established in the Russo-Chinese Treaties regulating commerce on the land frontier between Russia and China, and verbally this appears to be true. The Russo-Chinese Treaties stipulate for complete freedom of commerce, including freedom from all duties over the greater part, if not the whole, of the land frontier between Russia and China. But without entering into the question whether the Russian Treaties themselves are not contrary to the English Treaties with China, as giving special privileges and advantages to Russian subjects, it is easy to perceive that concessions and regulations with regard to trade on a distant land-frontier of China, through which foreign trade with the central provinces of China would hardly be carried on, may mean a very different thing from the same concessions and regulations applied to a part of the Chinese frontier which gives access to the main provinces of China itself, and where the land trade may consequently come into competition with the trade of the Treaty ports.
The intention to establish inequality, it may be noticed, is expressly avowed in the "Exposé des Motifs" submitted to the French Legislature in support of the "Projet de Loi ratifying the Treaty. "The difference," it is said, "is clearly explained by the consideration that the diminution of the Tariffs is in some sort the compensation of the expense of land transport." In other words, trade is to be diverted from its natural channels by sea to a more expensive route by land. It is needless to point out that the cost of transport is of necessity a variable item, and will vary not only with different distances, and with different means of communication which now exist, but also with all improvements or changes which may hereafter be brought about in such means by railways or otherwise. Under cover of such a Clause, it would not be difficult for the French and Chinese Governments to give a bounty on trade by the land-frontier as compared with the Treaty ports, and a bounty which would be effective after deducting the extra cost of a route naturally less suitable.
But, even if the present case were unimportant in its practical consequences, the principle involved in it is all important. If stipulations for equal treatment in the matter of duties are to be made to depend on, and to vary with the cost of transit, there is an end to any certainty or clearness in the meaning of such stipulations. Cost of transit is one of the natural conditions under which trade is carried on; and to give compensation by lower duties for higher cost of transit would be as injudicious as to give compensation for inferior soil or climate.
The Board of Trade refrain from commenting on Article VII, which stipulates that the Chinese Government is to address itself to French industry when it comes to construct railways, since the qualification that "this Clause is not to be considered as constituting an exclusive privilege in favour of France" appears to render the Clause unmeaning, as is pointed out in the Foreign Office letter to Mr. O'Connor of the 11th May last.
I have, &c.
(Signed) HENRY G. CALCRAFT.
Copy
The Board of Trade
Cat July 86
C. 14047
I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 15th inst., transmitting by direction of the Earl of Rosebery a copy of a despatch from H.M.'s Chargé d'Affaires at Peking, inclosing a translation of the Commercial Convention between France & China, which was signed at Tientsin in April last, under Instructions from the Earl of Rosebery.
RECEIVED 7 AUG 86
1
ļ
2
already opened by the Treaties "-in other words, there is to be a differential duty in favour of French trade between Tonquin and China at certain points of the land frontier, notwith- standing the above stipulation in the Treaty of Tien-tsin for most-favoured-nation treatment to British subjects in regard to duties.
In the Exposé des Motifs the explanation suggested is that the Chinese Government is only following as regards France the practice already established in the Russo-Chinese Treaties regulating commerce on the land frontier between Russia and China, and verbally this appears to be true. The Russo-Chinese Treaties stipulate for complete freedom of commerce, including freedom from all duties over the greater part, if not the whole, of the land frontier between Russia and China. But without entering into the question whether the Russian Treaties themselves are not contrary to the English Treaties with China, as giving special privileges and advantages to Russian subjects, it is easy to perceive that concessions and regulations with regard to trade on a distant land-frontier of China, through which foreign trade with the central provinces of China would hardly be carried on, may mean a very different thing from the same concessions and regulations applied to a part of the Chinese frontier which gives access to the main provinces of China itself, and where the land trade may consequently come into competition with the trade of the Treaty ports.
The intention to establish inequality, it may be noticed, is expressly avowed in the "Exposé des Motifs" submitted to the French Legislature in support of the "Projet de Loi ratifying the Treaty. "The difference," it is said, "is clearly explained by the consideration that the diminution of the Tariffs is in some sort the compensation of the expense of land transport." In other words, trade is to be diverted from its natural It is needless to point out that the channels by sea to a more expensive route by land. cost of transport is of necessity a variable item, and will vary not only with different distances, and with different means of communication which now exist, but also with all improvements or changes which may hereafter be brought about in such means by railways or otherwise. Under cover of such a Clause, it would not be difficult for the French and Chinese Governments to give a bounty on trade by the land-frontier as compared with the Treaty ports, and a bounty which would be effective after deducting the extra cost of a route naturally less suitable.
But, even if the present case were unimportant in its practical consequences, the principle involved in it is all important. If stipulations for equal treatment in the matter of duties are to be made to depend on, and to vary with the cost of transit, there is an end to any certainty or clearness in the meaning of such stipulations. Cost of transit is one of the natural conditions under which trade is carried on; and to give compensation by lower duties for higher cost of transit would be as injudicious as to give compensation for inferior
soil or climate.
The Board of Trade refrain from commenting on Article VII, which stipulates that the Chinese Government is to address itself to French industry when it comes to construct railways, since the qualification that "this Clause is not to be considered as constituting an exclusive privilege in favour of France" appears to render the Clause unmeaning, as is pointed out in the Foreign Office letter to Mr. O'Connor of the 11th May last.
I have, &c.
(Signed) HENRY G. CALCRAFT.
X
Copy
The
انه
J
259
Board of Trade
in
Cat July 86
C.
14047
REC?
REGE 7 AUG 36,
am directed by
the Board
of Trade to acknowledge the recpt of your
letter of 15th mist: न
transmitting by direction of the Earl of Rosebery
a
copy of a despatch from H.m.ch: d'aff at Reking, inclosing a translation of
а
the commercial Convention
between France & China
in
which was signed Tientsin in April last,
Under Is of State
and
7.0.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.