CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 418

to Messrs. Ilbert and Co, was seized. much difficulty.

14

10

411

This case also, I think, can be settled without

I have, &c.

(Signed)

PELHAM L. WARREN,

I have the honour to request your Excellency to favour me with a reply without delay, as, if Ilbert and Co. have been unfairly dealt with, it is my intention to put forward a claim for damages on their behalf,

I have, &c.

(Signed) PELIIAM L. WARREN.

}

Inclosure 11 in No. 1.

Consul-General Sir P. Warren to Officer Administering the Government of Kiangsu,

Your Excellency,

Shanghae, January 14, 1905.

I AM in receipt of your Excellency's telegram of the 7th instant on the subject of the charges levied on Ilbert and Co.'s cotton at the Shuanghsien barrier on the Island of Tsungming, and I have also been furnished by the Sung-bu Central La-kin Office with a Memorandum giving particulars of the charges which it is alleged are leviable on cotton, and of the mode of collecting the same.

A careful consideration of these two documents leads me to believe that an infraction of Treaty stimulations has been committed by the officials concerned.

Your Excellency states that Chiang Yen-tai is a ya-hang broker, and, as such, is bound to collect on behalf of the farmer of taxes a compounded levy-t'ungchüan---- in respect of all cotton purchased by him. That it may be incumbent for him to do so in respect of all cotton purchased by him on his own account I am not prepared to deny, but Chiang Yen-tai is not the purchaser of Ilbert and Co.'s cotton.

The latter firm have, for a fixed yearly rental, hired from him storage room, wherein to store temporarily cotton bought on their account by employés of theirs, whom they send to Tsungming from Shanghae for that special purpose. This they are by Treaty distinctly allowed to do. The Treaty further gives them the right to convey all such purchases to Shanghae under transit pass, thereby freeing it from any charges ordinarily leviable en route. As to growers' taxes, the arrangements arrived at between the British and the Chinese Governments only recognize the obligation of British subjects to pay such an impost on condition that it is non-differential, or, in other words, that nalive produce purchased by British subjects and brought down under transit pass is not charged a higher rate than produce which does not travel under transit pass. Now, I understand that white cotton which does not elect to pay the tungchüun of 600 cash per picul has to pay at the first barrier 360 cash per picul for grower's tax, i.e., 50 per cent. more than the rate published in the tariff of the Sung-hu Li-kin Office, and then an additional 360 cash at every barrier it subsequently passes. The first 360 cash are presumably the grower's tax; the subsequent payments are obviously transit li-kin, inas- much as they are not levied at the place of production.

The tungchuan is therefore a compound of grower's tax and transit li-kin, and from the payment of transit li-kin cotton under transit pass is freed by Treaty. More- over, in addition to the 'ungchuan, cotton exported from Tsungming to Shanghae has to pay a so-called export duty of 0.20 dollars per picul at the Shuanghsien barrier, and a visé charge of 0·05 taels at Wnsung, from both of which charges transit-pass cotton should be exempt. All that the Shuanghsien barrier can levy on cotton bought by British merchants in the Chinlung district is, accordingly, at the most 360 cash, the half transit duty of 0-20 taels being payable to the Imperial Maritime Customs at Shanghae.

And I am not even prepared to admit that 360 cash is a legitimate charge, seeing that I have it on the best of authority that the Ta Sheng Mill at Tungchow only pays an inclusive charge of 240 cash per picul-the rate laid down in the Sung-hu Li-kin Office's tariff for the white cotton it buys in the district in question.

It is needless for me to point out to your Excellency that His Majesty's Govern- ment cannot give their assent to preferential treatment of this kind, and unless your Excellency can give me proof that my information is inaccurate, I must insist on claiming equal privilege for all cotton bought by British subjects.

I would, in conclusion, beg leave to point out to your Excellency that for China, at a moment when she is seeking to obtain a raising of the import tariff in return for the abolition of internal taxation, to allow her officers to treat produce bought by foreigners in this differential manner is a course which is calculated to create a very bad impression, and one not likely to inspire confidence in the promises which China has given Great Britain in the recently-signed Commercial Treaty.

Note.

My despatch to Soochow of the 14th January was written in connection with the detention of cotton purchased by Messrs. Ilbert and Co., at Tsungming, and released after some correspondence. I sent Mr. Twyman to Haimen in connection with another cargo of cotton purchased by the same Company at Haimen, and detained there by the Li-kin officials until Mr. Twyman proceeded to the spot.

The pretexts given for detention and the circumstances are similar in both cases, and the arguments set forth in my despatch apply to both.

PELIIAM L. WARREN.

Sir,

(Signed)

Inclosure 12 in No. 1.

Mr. E. S. Little to Sir E. Satow.

Shanghae, June 12, 1905. I HAVE the honour to forward you herewith, through Sir Pelham Warren, K.C.M.G., His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, a letter to Lord Lansdowne in amplification of our cable of the 3rd May, and as requested by Lord Lansdowne,

I am sorry there has been some delay in forwarding this letter, but the same has been unavoidable when so many people have had to be consulted.

Sir,

I am, &c.

(Signed) EDWARD S. LITTLE.

Inclosure 13 in No. 1.

Extract from the "North China Daily News."

THE MACKAY TREATY IN PARLIAMENT.

To the Editor of the "North China Daily News."

April 22, 1905, REUTER'S report of Earl Percy's reply in the House of Commons to a question as to China and the Shanghae Treaty brings the disappointing news that the British If His Government is absolutely ignorant of the existing state of affairs in China. Majesty's Minister to China and the Consuls have reported home the number of cases of Chinese evasion of Treaty obligations, the Government will be unable to state with truth that "no information has reached the Government as to China having ignored the terms of the Mackay Treaty."

If British officials in China bave not informed the Government it is time the British mercantile community should step in and supply the necessary information to our badly- informed Government. There are British Consuls eager to assist their nationals, but without strong backing from the higher authorities they can effect nothing. The Government apparently does not wish to be bothered with the facts which they are able to present as to the working of the Treaty.

26

Times" have fully informed The Peking and Shanghae correspondents of the the British public, at any rate, as to the condition of affairs, and it is undoubtedly owing to these revelations that Earl Percy has been compelled to confess before Parliament the ignorance of the. Government. We must now stir up the Government from its lethargy and endeavour to get Lord Lansdowne to take some action commensurate with present requirements.