SHIPPING, Ir has been already pointed out ina pubished paper on "British Shipping Interests in China," that by the European and American Treaties concluded with the Chinese Government at Tientsin in 1858, the privi-Jege of trading in Chinese produce between the different ports of the Chinese coast was accorded to foreign vessels, on the mere payment of tonnage dues not exceeding four Zaace per ton once in every four months (See "Articles XI and XXIX of British Treaty), and moreover, that should such vessels be solely employed for the conveyance of passengers, baggage, letters, articles of pro-Mission, or other articles not subject to duty between any of the open sports, they should be even exempt from such payment, and so be admitted to the entire coasting trade of China, on her rivers and seaboard, wherever trade was to be established, free from all taxation whatever, (See Article XXXI of British Treaty.) It is, therefore, astonishing to find that, notwithstanding these clear and summary Treaty stipulations, there should be levied in addition to the above mentioned dues on vessels engaged in the coasting trade of China, another serious tax {n the shape of a coast rmapz Dury, which though nominally charged on the cargoes of native produce carried by foreign vessels, is substantially an equivalent impost indirect ly burthening the shipping employed on the chinese coast, and amounting in the year 1876 to Tis. '1,104,448.0.0, or more than tenfold the amount of the total tonnage dues (Tls. 104,803) collected under the Treaties from the foreign coasting traders; 80 that instead of the legitimate duty of four mace per ton for every four months which was settled by Treaty, an actual amount of four taels and four mace per ton for every four months is now levied by the Chinese Government on all foreign shippin, trading on its coast, making an annum taxation of thirteen taels and two mace per ton, or nearly the equivalent of one-fifth of the' entire cost of every vessel sent out to China from Europe and America for the coasting trade, which is thus absorbed for the benefit of the Manchu reigning dynasty of China without its having any general Treaty right to do so.
Tt should besides be observed, in order to this oppressive tax, exacted by the Chinese et a right view of the anomalous nature of
Government, that it is not levied on some miserable African or Asiatic second-rate nation which is unabletoremonstrate against such burthens being imposed on it, but that it is actually extracted from such powerful states as Great Britain, France, and other European powers, and the United States of America; and that these nations, possessing ample means in their hands for liberating their shipping from this over-Phelming taxation, are quietly submitting to it wit Hour making the slightest effort to get rid of it What makes this affair still more astonishing, is that in nearly all the Treaties between those Western nations it is expressly stipulated, even when the coasting trade ihas been thrown open to foreigners, that no THE TREATY ILLEGALITY OF THE coast tonnage dues or other dues ruler whatever the shape of increased trading denomination, shall be levied on them in: excess of what ts levied on native vessels engaged in the same trade, so that the Chinese Government has been treated with in an! exceptionally favourable manner by these western nations in this respect, by even jas to how the Chinese managed to effect allowing it to levy differential tonnage dues the recognition of this tax. To do this it on their ships, in opposition to their own erally received customs as observed by Western nations amongst themselves; and still more so by allowing it to impose a coasting trade duty in addition to the duties already levied in excess of international usage on this point.* It is not too much to assert, that no one of the Western nations before named would submit to such a crushing additional taxation on their shipping as that above-mentioned, if it were sought to be imposed on any one of them by the others as the condition of their being admitted to the liberty of the coasting trade.
As the present scale of tonnage dues has been settled by Treaty, there is no intention here of slaying any special stress on the unusual concessions made by foreign nations to. China in the payment of higher dues than are paid by native junks, with the view of now calling in question the treaty stipulations thereanent, and which have been unfortunately acquiesced in, against all precedent of international agreements. Attention is merely now drawn to this exceptional state of affairs, in order to point out the expediency of hereafter assimilating the Treaties with China to those contracted between Western powers, when the period for their revision takes place and also to show more strongly the unreasonableness of the Chinese Government's inflicting an additional burthen on British and other foreign shipping by the Coast Trade Duty, while it has already secured larger tonnage dues from them than any other nation collects from ships frequenting its own coasts.
It is specially to the Coast Trade Duty that the following observations are directed, so that the question may be considered wi the view of: altogether getting rid of this burthensome and illegal taxation when some fitting opportunity occurs. This matter has been already most ably treated by the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce some years but it is now re-opened, as hitherto all efforts to get the grievance complained of removed have not yet been successful, and it is expedient to show that it is not acquit osced in, lest the old proverb, "Silence gives consent," should be alleged for its continuance. First of all the question suggests itself, how was it that so grievous a tax on foreign shipping, for which there is no foundation in the Treaties, was ever allowed. by the' British Government in the first instance, and afterwards by the other Treaty powers blindly following suit?' Unfortunately, the records of the transaction offer no satisfactory explanation for this restriction on the freedom of the coasting trade being introduced. Neither is there any evidence to show that it was admitted through some adequate compensation in Seo British ith Austria, 1968, Attic ith Belgiam, 186%, Article V3 with Dentoark, 1e24, Arvicie, Uy with Eeanco, 1626," Article Ty with' Italy, case il Sea 1859, Artistes 1, VI. privileges being granted to foreigners by way of exchange over and above what they had secured by Treaty. It is only by referring to the antecedent circumstances of the transaction that any light can be obtained will be necessary to go back to the year 1858, and to the events immediately after the Tientsin Treaty was signed, when that tematic encroachment on the Treaty privileges of foreigners was commenced, of which the Coast Trade Duty is one of the most conspicuous instances.
will doubtless be remembered that the British Treaty of Tientsin was signed on the 26th June, 1858, and that in Are tide XXVI it was provided "that the "Emperor of China was to depute a high "officer of the Board of Revenue to meet "at Shanghai officers to be deputed on "behalf of the British Government, to "consider the revision of the tariff, in "order that the tariff as thus revised "might come into operation immediately "after the ratification of the Treaty The object of the Commission 8 ap= pointed under the Treaty was explicit, It was merely to revise the tariff, and nothing else; as everything had been arranged in the Treaty but that. Lord Elgin had some misgivings about this Commission. It is stated at page 276 of his correspondence that while waiting at Shanghai, before the Commissioners had arrived, circumstances had come to his Lordship's knowledge which gave him reason to fear they might be disposed to call in question some of the privileges conceded under, the Treaty, and though partly on his guard against their duplicity, his mind was guided by such a thorough sense of honor that he could only have supposed the Chinese had similar feelings. Lord Elgin wrote on 10th October, "T have reason to suspect "that the Commi mers came here with "some hope that they might make diffi-"culties about some of the concessions "obtained in the Treaty recently signed." Notwithstanding all these suspicions in the mind of Lord ra) gin, the Chinese Commissioners managed bythe 8th of November, 1858, to conclude an arrangement with him which was intended to deprive one of the principal clauses of the Treaty of its chief object, and which paved the way for the Coast "Trade Duty being introduced Inter on. In the preamble of the agreement con cluded at Shanghai it is set forth, "that "the conference had been held in pursuance of the Tientsin Treaty provision, for the "purpose of determining the amount of "tariff duties and transit dues to be henceforth levied, and that the high Commis-"sioners had' determined upon the revised "tariff thereto appended, together with other "rules and regulations for the better explana-"tion of the treaty aforesaid"; as though the latter position of the Commissioners' work were equally sanctioned by the Tientsin Treaty as the first-mentioned part. This was a misleading statement, and there can be no doubt but that the Commissioners on both sides, in framing these rules and explanations of the Treaty, went beyond the scope provided for by its Article XX VI, and that they thereby exceeded the powers
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.