5 4 CHINA'S STRUGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF on the comparison basis,and (c)the export and re-export duty was true of all ports on the China coast to which foreign trading rates.Four years later when certain foreign vessels had ships had made their way,such as Amoy,Foochow,Ningpo, penetrated to Tinghai (near Ningpo,the Viceroys of Chusan,ete.,but it was especially true of Canton,to which port Fukien and Chekiang proposed to the Government.that the rates by the middle of the eighteenth century foreign trade with of the existing tariff should be doubled in order to deter these China had become restricted,and where that trade was further unbidden traders from further intrusion.In the.same fettered and confined as it could be carried on only through Emperor's reign an attempt was made to divert.into the the so-called co-hong,1 a group of Chinese merchants,never Government treasury the various fees and irregular charges exceeding fourteen,but usually numbering thirteen,licensed levied at every Customs establishment by the staff to gupplement by the Government for the purpose of guaranteeing the their uncertain and inadequate pay,but the would-be reform payment by foreign traders of all dues and duties and of acting proved premature.It was with these tariffs,then,sanctioned as sole intermediaries between these traders and the local by the Imperial Government,but interpreted.and applied by officials.Small wonder then that lack of fixity of tariff charges the local and provincial Customs authorities nominally function- and malpractices on the part of Customs officers was a frequent ing under that Government that the European traders in China subject of complaint from foreign traders.A few quotations in the seventeenth and the eighteenth.centuries first made from contemporary witnesses will make this clear.In the acquaintance.Speaking generally,and judging from what is Petition of British Subjects in China of 24th December,1830, known of these and similar tariffs1 we are safe in saying that presented to the House of Commons on 28th June,1831,the the rates sanctioned by the Imperial Government were in them- petitioners state:?"From the moment a foreign vessel arrives, selves not oppressive,and that had these rates been strictly her business is liable to be delayed by underlings of the Custom and impartially adhered to,the history of China's relations with House on frivolous pretexts,for the sake of extorting foreign Powers in the all-important issues of.tariff and unauthorized charges;the duty on her import cargo is levied Customs administration would most probably have followed a in an arbitrary manner by low,unprincipled men,who openly widely different course.It was the interpretation and applica- demand bribes;it is consequently of uncertain amount and by tion of the tariffs by the local Customs authorities that gave the addition of local exactions,exceeds by many times the rate rise to one of the chief.causes of complaint of the foreign prescribed by the Imperial tariff,which appears to be in general merchants against the conditions under which they were moderate,although so little attended to in practice,that compelled to trade.These Customs authorities knowing that it is scarcely possible to name any fixed charge,except on a the sun of prosperity would.shine for them'for but a brief few articles."Again,in the Petition of British Subjects at time-as every few years there was a change of chief which Canton to the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council,s drawn brought with it a change of staff-had to make the most of up on 9th December,1834 the signatories complain that-"the the opportunities afforded them by their short term of office; benefits that might be reaped under a well regulated system of commercial intercourse are curtailed or lost in consequence firstly,to enable them to recoup the outlay necessitated in the securing of that office;secondly;to provide sufficient funds of the restrictions to which the trade is at present subjected,and the arbitrary and irregular exactions to which to keep graciously disposed to them the higher authorities whose it is exposed either directly,or not less severely because influence was and would be worth retaining;thirdly,to meet the fixed contributions due to the Imperial exchequer;and, indirectly,through the medium of the very limited number of lastly,to make for themselves provision against the chilly days 1 This system existed,with varying fortunes,only from about 1720 to of adversity which might come upon them in the future.This the signing of the Treaty of Nanking,when it was abolished.Vide B.P.P. Correspondence and Papers relating to China 1840:pp.279-285. 1For modern versions,in Chinese,of some of these old tariffs,which 2B.P.P.A Petition of British Subjects in China praving for the per- were in force at the Native Customs establishments at the treaty ports in manent residence at Peking of'a Representative of His Majesty,to protect 1901,when they were placed under the control of the Inspector General the interests of His countrymen.1833.p.3. vide Part VI of Customs Paper No.73 (V.Office Series)Parts I-VI: 3 B.P.P.Correspondence and Papers relating to China.1840:p.69. Shanghai,1902-1903. Quoted also in The Chinese Repository 1835,Vol.III,p.358. 67年7月熟党4 CHINA'S sTimGGLE FOR TARIFF AUTONOMY' on the c~mparison basis, and (c) the export and re-export duty rates. Four years later when certain foreign vessels had penetrated t~ Tingh~i (~iflj:) near Ningpo, ,the Viceroys of Fukien and Chekiang proposed to the Government that the rates of the existing tariff should be doubled in order to deter these unbidden traders from further intrusion. 1il the . salIle Emperor's reign an attempt was made to divert, into the Government treasury the various fees and _. irregu~ar cl1arges levied at everyCustomsestablishn'lent by the staff to supplement their uncertain and inadequate pay, but the would-be reform proved premature. It was with these 'tariffs, then;. sanctioned by the Imperial Government, but interpreted and applied by the local and provincial Customs authorities' nominally function￾ing under that Government that the European traders in China. in the seventeenth and the eighteenth -. centuries first made acquaintance. Speaking generally, and judging from what is known of these and similar tariffsl we are safe in saying that the rates sanctioned by the Irttperial Government were in theme selves not oppressive, and that had these rates been strictly and impartially adhered to, the history of China's relations with foreign Powers in the all"important issues of. tariff and Customs administration would most probably have followed a widely different. course: It wll.s the interpretation and applica￾tion of the tariffs by the IQcal Customs authorities that gave rise to one of the dlief ·causes of complaint of the foreign merchants against the conditions under which they were compeIled to trade. These _ Customs authorities knowing that the sun -of prosperity would. shine for them' for but a brief time--as every few years there was a change of chief. which brought with it a change of staff....;..had to make the most of the opportunities afforded them by their short term of office; firstly, to enable them to recoup thll outlay I¥lcessitated in the securing of that office; secondly;' to provide sufficient funds to ke;ep graciously disposed to them the higher authorities whose influence was and would be worth retaining; thirdly, to meet the fixed contributions due to' the Imperial exchequer; and, lastly, to make for themselves provision against the chilly days of adversity which might come upon them in the future.' This 1 For modern versions, in Chinese, of some of these old tariffs, which were in force at the Native Customs establishments at the treaty ports in 1901, when _ they were placed under the control of the .InspectorGene~al vide Part VI of Customs Paper No. 73 (V. Office Serles) Parts ':I-VI~ Shanghai, 1902...,..1903. THE FIVE PER CENT AD VALOREM TREATY TARIFF 5 was true of all ports on the China coast to which foreign trading ships had made their way, such as Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, Chusan, etc., but it was especially true of Canton, to which port by the middle of the eighteenth century foreign trade with China had become restricted, and where that trade was further fettered and confined as it could be carried on only through the so-called co-hong,la group of Chinese merchants, never exceeding fourteen, but usually numbering thirteen, licensed by the Government for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment by foreign traders of all dues and duties and of acting as sole intermediaries between these traders and the local officials. Small wonder then that lack of fixity of tariff charges and malpractices on the part of Customs officers was a frequent subject of . complaint from foreign traders. A few quotations from contemporary witnesses will make this clear. In. the Petition of British Subjects in China of 24th December, 1830, presented to the House of Commons on 28th June, 1831, the petitioners state: 2 "From the moment a foreign vessel arrives, her business is liable to be delayed by underlings of the Custom House on frivolous pretexts, for the sake of extorting unauthorized charges; the duty on her import cargo is levied in an arbitrary manner by low, unprincipled men,' who openly demand bribes; it is consequently of ·uncertain amount and by the addition of local exactions, exceeds by many times the rate prescribed by the Imperial tariff, which appears to be in general moderate, although so little attended to in practice, that . it is scarcely possible to. name any fixed charge, except on. a few articles." Again, in the Petition of British Subjects at Canton to the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council,3 drawn up' on -9th December, 1834 the signatories complain that-"the benefits that might be reaped under a well regulated system of commercial intercourse are curtailed or lost in consequence of the restrictions to which the trade is at present subjected, and the arbitrary' and irregular exactions to which it is exposed. either directly, or not less severely because indirectly, through the medium of the very limited number of 1 This system existed, with va.l'ying fortunes, only from about 1720 to the signing of the_ Treaty of N"n~ing, whel!- it was abolished. "Vide B.P.P. Co,.,·espondence and Papers relattng to Ch1-na 184Q: pp. 279-285. 2 B.P.P. A Petition of British Subjects in China pra1fi>;1J for the per- manent resid(!nce at PekinlJ of'a Representative of His MaJesty, to p"otect the interests of His countrymen. 1833. p. 3. 3 B.P.P. Corresponden~e and Papers relating to China. 1840: p.69. Quoted also in The Chinese Repository 1835, Vol. III, p. 358. '''\ r