'THERE isa marked contrast between the quantity of correspondence upon Trade and that upon Punishments, Manchuria, and the Indemnity. What there is, however, hasan interest ofts own. German opinion in the ruling circles at home is seen from the two following extracts (1) A letter from Sir F. Lascelles to Lord Lansdowne, dated Berlin 4th January, 1901. The latter had expressed fears as to ill effects on trade of the raising of the duties. The former writes.
"Baron von Richthofen said that he did not share your Lordship's apprehensions on this point. An augmentation of the customs duties would no doubt be the simplest. method of raising whatever money might be necessary. Those duties were at present very low, and could support a very considerable augmentation without in any way hampering trade. An increase of customs duties, moreover, would have to be borne chiefly by the consumers in China, and unless the increase were such as to render the duties prohibitive, would not, in the opinion of German experts, reduce the volume of trade. It would, of course, be necessary that the increase of customs duties should be applied to all countries alike. The amount of indemnity to be claimed from China had not yet. been determined; it would no doubt be large, but his Excellency hoped not more than could be met by an increase of the customs and certain likin duties, and thus avoid anything in the shape of an_international control of the financial administration of China, which he presumed would be the alternative, and which, he considered, was strongly to be deprecated."
(2) Some fifteen days later Lord Lansdowne in his turn writes to Sir F. Lascelles giving the gist of a conversation held with Count Hermann Hatafeldt.
He wished me to know that the German ment were strongly in favour of a ein the maritime customs, ith an attempt to reform the likin duties. The German Government was convinced that the Chinese trade could stand very large increase of the customs duties without ill-effect to those engaged in commerce, of whom, as I had reminded him, German and British traders constituted a large majority. I told Count, Hatzfeldt that we were examining these questions, but that I did not entirely agree with him in his apparent belief that" largely enhanced duties could be imposed ithout a serious effect upon the volume of trade.
Sir E. Satow's dispatch of the 15th February, 1901, contains several important points. He states that ouefourth of the Customs revenue is derived respectively from the duties on Imports, Exports, Opium, coast trade and tonnage, transit and Yangtze dues and continues present work out to about percent.
The rates of duty upon the imports at ad valorem, The export duties could not afford any increase in the revenue, and ought not to be required to clu so. "They require readjustment. increase is possible as regards the opium revenue nor for any of No. 4. The dues on coast trade: should be done away with. If, however, order to produce interest for loan to pay indemnities, we concede an increase on imports to China, we lose the only lever we have for bringing about the reform of the likin dues and the other commercial concessions, as well as other reforms which merchants are anxious to obtain in regard to customs.
The British Minister was strongly desirous of keeping commercial discussions entirely apart from the political.
Sir Robert Hart's proposals respecting the payment of the indemnity were as follow He suggests salt gabelle, which might be raised by careful management to 20,000,000 taels, native customs 5,000,000, ' Peking octroi 500,000, Manchu pensions 3,000,000, tribute rice 2,000,000 to 3,000,000, as sources of revenue of which note should be taken. The Chinese officials propose to replace the revenue thus abstracted by means of house-tax which would yield 20,000,000,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.