428
429
H
i
Proposed collection of
Chinese Customs
dues and duties in Hongkong.
hiv-d, other in theory
Palmerston'a
attitude to this
proposal
(2)
time stipulated that "all just charges and duties to the Empire upon the commerce carried on there [are] to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa." Thus at the very birth of the Colony it is clear that the British Plenipotentiary recognised not only that the cession of the island raised a problem of vital importance to Chins, namely, the steps to be taken for the protection of China's revenue, but also that, in his opinion, the solution lay in arranging for collecting in Hongkong itself the dues and duties payable to the Chinese Government. This projected convention, however, was disavowed by the Emperor of China and the Imperial Commissioner recalled in disgrace for having consented to it, the head and front of his offence being agreement to the cession of Chinese territory. Nevertheless, before it was known that ratification would be withheld the British authorities had already, on 26th January 1841, 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 emphasise the value of the place, and as the British home authorities, on bearing of the acquisition and occupation of the island, did not openly repudiate Elliot's action in this respect, it follows that they tacitly for the time being confirmed that action, even though the cession had not been ratified by the Emperor.† Free trade principles, however, as well as distrust of Chinese Customs methods and levies, at that time were too deeply ingrained in the British trading community to permit of the establishment on the island of au agency for the collecting of Chinese Customs dues and duties.
The clause, therefore, of the unratified Treaty of Chuenpi guaranteeing some such arrangement soon became a dead letter.
§ 2. Further evidence of the free trade attitude of the infant Colony will be found in the 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, although Sir Brooke Robertson, H.B.M.'s Consul at Canton, writing in December 1874, claimed that at the time this notification was issued "Chinese duties were levied at Hongkong under the Agreement of 20th January 1841, and the right to do so continued until the signing of the Treaty of Nankin in August 1842, when it ceased."§ That such a declaration of free port status, unless accompanied by measures for the protection of China's revenue rights, would place China in a most disadvan- tageous position was recognised even by Lord Palmerston, whose strong imperialistic attitude no one can question. Without such safeguards it amounted almost to an open challenge of China's revenue rights, for in those days, when mercantile buccaneering was still rampant,
* British Parliamentary Papers: "Correspondence relative to Military Operations in China" (1843), p. 14.
† When giving 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.-H. B. Morse: "The International Relations of the Chinese Empire" (London, 1910), Vol. I, pp. 628, 638. "It appears to Her Majesty's Government that the inland of Hongkong ought to be retained."-Lord Palmerston to Sir Henry Pottinger, 5th June 1841. Morse, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 661.
#Chinese Repository, Vol. X, 1841, p. 350 (vide Appendix B),
§ British Parliamentary Papers: "Correspondence relating to the Complaints of the Mercantile Community in Hong- kong against the Action of Chinese Revenue Cruizers in the Neighbourhood of the Colony" (1875), p. 41.
(8)
everyone knew that while the British Government could not and would not support clandestino trading, yet the arbitrary opening of a 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 dues and duties. Palmerston clearly understood the situation, for although he censured Elliot severely for not carrying out orders, 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 encouraged 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 exorbitant and illegal duties."
*** The final settlement of this issue was left in the hands of the Plenipotentiary, with the proviso that whatever arrangement should finally be made it was to be embodied in a treaty properly ratified by the Emperor of China.
made by Sir
China's revenue
3. Sir Henry Pottinger soon found that local feeling and opinion among the British Arrangements traders were against any arrangement by which Chinese Customs officials should be permitted Henry Pottinger to function in Hongkong for the collecting on China's behalf of dues and duties from vessels to safeguard trading with the newly opened treaty ports. He realised, however, that some action on the rights. part of the British authorities was called for, to prove to all and sundry that the cession of Hongkong was not to be interpreted as official neutrality towards those who took it as inaugurating an era of unlicensed trading. In the Treaty of Nanking, signed on 29th August 1842, by which the cession of the island of Hongkong was duly ratified (Article 3), no provision is made for the control of the illegitimate trade which, to the detriment of China's revenue, such cession would inevitably encourage; but as the text of this treaty had, in the main, been drafted in London, such provision could hardly be expected. That the cession had the un- desirable effect referred to, and that the British Plenipotentiary was alive to this effect and to his duty in regard to it, is evidenced (1) by the proclamation which he issued on 15th April 1843 to all British subjects peremptorily informing them that as a fair and regular tariff was now in force all smuggling transactions must coase,§ and (2) by the insertion in the Supplementary Treaty of Hoomun Chai (), signed 8th October 1843, in the drafting of which the Treaty of Hoomun Plenipotentiary had a free hand, of special clauses designed to put a check on illegitimate trade. Of these the twelfth article provides for the placing of a British Consul at each of the five recently opened treaty ports to strictly watch over and carefully scrutinise the conduct of all persons being British subjects trading under his superintendence," with strict instructions to apprise instantly the Chinese authorities of any smuggling transactions coming to his * Lord Palmerston to Sir Henry Pottinger, 31st May 1841. 1.0. Circular No. 418, Second Series. Morse, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 658. (Vide Appendix C.)
+ British Parliamentary Papers: "Papers relating to the Colony of Hongkong" (1857), p. 36.
Hid., pp. 33, 34-
§ Chinese Repository, Vol. XII, 1843, p. 224 (ride Appendix D),
Chai, 1843-
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.