?
visit the Wai-wu Pu to express my surprise at the publication in the press of a garbled version of a conversation which I had had with the president of the Wai- wu Pu, and to state that I considered such action as opposed to the usual courtesy of diplomatic intercourse, and that I hoped that steps would be taken to provent a renewal of such an indiscretion.
I have, &c.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
W. G. MAX MÜLLER.
Memorandum by Mr. Phillips on the Prohibition of the Export of Rice from Hunan.
IN October 1907 the governor of Hunan, after withdrawing in August, on account of the admitted cessation of any scarcity or apprehension of scarcity, a total prohibition of export of rice, ordered the Commissioner of Customs at Changsha to post a notice that though the export of rice from Hunan was not totally prohibited, no port beyond Hankow would thenceforth be inserted in the certificates prescribed by the tariff rules appended to the Treaty of Tien-tsin. The Commissioner of Customs at Hankow nullified the effect of this irregular proclamation by endorsing Changsha certificates for rice on to further ports, and so long as this practice continued foreign merchants did not think it worth while to make a protest.
On the 20th November, 1909, His Majesty's consul-general at Hankow telegraphed that the Hunan Provincial Assembly had taken up the question of shipinent of rice beyond Hankow, and that unless it was stopped they would insist on total prohibition of export from Changsha. This, Mr. Fraser pointed out, would be very serious for the province of Hupei, where floods had caused wide- spread distress. He added that the Viceroy had asked him as a favour to direct British subjects to suspend all transhipment of Hunan rice until the new crop was harvested in the middle of 1910. Mr. Fraser was in favour of a compromise on these lines, but suggested limiting the suspension to three months. In his reply of the 22nd November Sir John Jordan stated that unless the Chinese authorities proceeded according to article 14 of the Mackay treaty it was hardly possible to direct British subjects to suspend all transhipment of Hunan rice; be, however, suggested that Mr. Fraser should concert with his colleagues and try to arrange that all foreigners at Hankow should voluntarily engage to abstain from transhipping rice for a limited period. To this Mr. Fraser replied on the 23rd November that he doubted the success of such a scheme owing to the lack of a penalty for the breach of the voluntary suspension. He submitted as a preferable course that in return for the withdrawal of the Changsha Customs notice special permission should be given to Hunan to add rice for distressed Hupei to the two treaty exceptions of tribute and army rice (see Mackay treaty, article 14) when imposing with the prescribed three weeks' notice a general prohibition. On the 25th November His Majesty's Minister telegraphed approving the suggestion.
21
In his despatch dated the 23rd November, confirming his telegrams of the 20th and 23rd November, Mr. Fraser stated that the words "rice for distressed Hupei' were suggested as avoiding the idea of special purchases by relief commissions and officers, a system that tended to discrimination and favouritism. For the same reason he suggested a plain stipulation against the issue of Hu-chaos "permits,' leaving the business to run in accordance with the trade demands of Hupei, while the fixing of the amount to be exported on a liberal estimate would obviate disturbance of the local market and render cornering" unprofitable. He added that an assurance would also be required that the purchase and conveyance of rice up to the stipulated amount would be open and free to natives and foreigners on equal terms. In conclusion he stated that from Mr. Hewlett's letters he doubted whether Hunan as a whole was really in a condition to justify a prohibition of export.
On the 6th December Mr. Fraser wrote privately that his proposal as to relief rice had sufficed to stave off Hunan's threatened prohibition at least for the time being, but that the Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Aglen, was showing signs of growing restive about continuing to permit transhipment in defiance of the Changsha notice of 1907.
His Majesty's consul at Changsha on the 26th November, reported that the gentry were anxious to secure a total prohibition of the export of rice in order to control the
3
Hunan and Hupei markets in the spring of 1910. Consequently, in order to be in a position to deny that there was expected scarcity in Hunan, he obtained reports from the various stations of the Wesleyan mission which on the whole appeared to show that the late crop had been a fair average one.
A month elapsed without any change in the situation. But on the 7th January Mr. Fraser telegraphed that the Commissioner of Customs, under the instructions from the Acting Viceroy, had issued a notification that only rice under through documents from the Hunan customs would be allowed to go on beyond Hankow. The commis- sioner explained that he had no option, and could no longer nullify the effect of the Changsha Customs notice of October 1907, which was still posted. Mr. Fraser was instructed in reply on the 21st January to arrange to have the question taken up by the consular body, and referred officially to the diplomatic body.
Subsequently, on the 31st January, Mr. Fraser forwarded copies of a protest addressed by the consular body to the Viceroy of Wu-chang and the governor of Hunan, dated the 25th January, and also copy of the consular body's letter to the diplomatic body of the 26th January. In the latter letter the consular body pointed out the irregularity of the proclamation issued by the governor of Hunan in October 1907, and explained that so long as its effect was nullified by the action of the Com- missioner of Customs at Hankow in endorsing Changsha certificates on to further ports, foreign merchants had let the question rest, but now that the Commissioner of Customs refused to continue this practice, they naturally protested. In conclusion, the consular body referred to the possible propriety of an extra-treaty arrangement as a measure of temporary expediency, but they urged that the principle should be maintained that provincial governments have no power arbitrarily to vary treaties.
In the consular body's letter of the 25th January, to the Viceroy of Wuchang and the governor of Hunan, they laid stress on the following points: firstly, that it is the Chinese Government that alone is at liberty to impose prohibitions; secondly, that prohibitions are confined to districts; thirdly, prohibitions must be justified by expected scarcity or famine in each district; and fourthly, traffic from one treaty port to any other treaty port may not be interfered with except for the cause and in the manner specified in the treaty. At the same time, in view of the distress in Hupei, the consular body stated that if the governor of Hunan should have desired as an exceptional step to arrange through his Government with the diplomatic body in Peking for an extra-treaty agreement that rice for Hupei relief be excepted from general prohibitions to be notified at Yochow and Changsha, the consular body would have been prepared to recommend such a relaxation of the treaty rule to their Ministers.
The next step in this matter was the receipt of a note from the Wai-wu Pu dated the 8th February, enclosing a long telegram from the governor of Hunan, who explained the reasons why permission to export beyond Haukow had been suspended. The governor asked the board to request the British Minister to notify the consuls that British merchants should comply with the prohibition. Further, as regards Mr. Fraser's suggestion that relief rice from Hupei should be exempted from the general prohibition, the board added that this was a question for the Hunan governor to consider.
Before this note was replied to, a despatch was received from Changsha, dated the 2nd February, stating that the Customs had refused to issue permits to Messrs. Butterfield and Swire and Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co. to export rice to Tien-tsin and Shanghae. His Majesty's consul protested in writing both to the governor and Commissioner of Customs, but met with no success.
No progress having been made locally in Hankow and Changsha towards a solution of the question, His Majesty's Minister addressed a note to the Wai-wu Pu un the 12th February, calling attention to the illegality of the steps taken by the Viceroy of Wuchang and the governor of Hunan. He pointed out that article 14 of the commercial treaty of 1902 was negotiated to put a stop to the arbitrary embargoes on the export of rice which provincial governments were in the habit of imposing, He further added that the question was under discussion by the diplomatic body, and that he was willing to consider with his colleagues the adoption of a reasonable measure of temporary expediency to meet the distress in Hupei. In a further note, dated the 17th February, His Majesty's stated that the refusal of the Commissioner of Customs to issue permits to British firms to ship rice to Shanghae and Tien-tsin would give rise to claims for damages from the British firms in question.
On the 19th February Mr. Frazer forwarded a copy of the senior consul's despatch of that date to the doyen of the diplomatic body, enclosing a copy of the
182
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.