CHINA TRADE. (Hansard, 27 March 1855)

§ MR. HORSFALL

said, that in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, he had no desire to ask for any papers the production of which would be detrimental to the public service; nor did he wish to say one word against the present Government or against the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, to whose ability and attention he bore ready testimony. The question of our trade with China, however, was one of the greatest importance not only to the merchants of Liverpool and Manchester, as well as the metropolis, but to the whole consuming population of this country; and it was particularly so at a time when the necessities of the State had induced the Government to arrest the operations of the Act for the reduction of the duty upon tea. He must ask the House to go back with him to the year 1851, when certain disturbances occurred in China, and our Consul at Shanghai took upon himself to interfere in the collection of the Customs' revenue. At that time the merchants, both in China and England, remonstrated with the noble Lord the then Foreign Minister, who immediately acted with his accustomed promptitude, and issued orders to the effect that the British Consul should no 1244 longer do that for the Emperor of China which the Emperor's own servants would not do for him, and, in fact, that consular interference in the collection of Customs should not be permitted to continue. Those instructions would be found in the following letter:— (Copy.) Foreign Office, June 18th, 1851. Sir—I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acquaint you in reply to your letter of this day's date, that Sir George Bonham was instructed by the Mail of last month to state to the Chinese High Commissioner, that as the Chinese authorities will not do their duty in preventing the Emperor of China from being defrauded of his just dues, the British Government can no longer order her Majesty's Consuls to do that for the Emperor of China, which the Emperor's own servants do not deem it necessary to do for Him; and that consequently all interference on the part of the British Consular Authorities for the protection of the Chinese Revenue, will for the future be withheld. Sir George Bonham was further instructed to make such arrangements as might appear to him to be sufficient for carrying out the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.—I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) "H. U. ADDINGTON. It was, consequently, natural to suppose that instructions so clear and precise would be effectual; but, in September, 1853, grievances again broke out, and Mr. Alcock again resorted to the plan of collecting revenue for the Chinese authorities; Sir George Bonham, our Superintendent at Hong Kong, disapproved of consular interference, and referred the matter to the Home Government. On the 3rd of February the Chinese collector of revenue returned to Shanghai, with a distinct understanding that all rations were to be placed on the same footing, and it was settled that the duty should be paid upon the express condition that everybody should be treated alike. But this was not acted upon by the Chinese authorities, for, while the British merchants were giving bonds as securities for the payment of duties, the merchants of other nations were not required to do so. The British merchants protested against this, and claimed to be put upon the same footing as others were. While the American Consul declared Shanghai to be a free port, the British Consul exacted a bond from the British merchants as a security for the amount of the duty. Sir George Bonham disapproved of this also, and the matter was again referred home. On the 13th of April, Sir John Bowring arrived in China. His first act was to establish Consular Courts to decide upon the very questions which he knew 1245 had been referred home by Sir George Bonham for the decision of the British Government. The British merchants immediately protested against this proceeding. Sir John Bowring did not attempt to conceal that he knew that this matter had been referred home, for, in his reply to the protest of the British merchants, he admitted it, at the same time stating that he conceived the responsibility of allowing the Consular Courts to be accessible to the Chinese authorities for the recovery of duties rested wholly upon himself. Here then arose a difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government at home and Her Majesty's representative at Shanghai. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department considered that the decision rested with the Home Government, and Sir John Bowring considered that it rested with him. The question at issue therefore was, whether the British Government would submit to Sir John Bowring's opinion, or whether he should be required to submit to the decision of Her Majesty's Government? On the 6th of June, 1854, Mr. Hammond wrote to the Liverpool Association, to the effect— Foreign Office, 6th June, 1854. To the Chairman of the Liverpool East India and China Association. Sir,—I am directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acknowledge the receipt of your Letter of 25th ultimo, and I am to state to you in reply, for the information of the Liverpool East India and China Association, that as Sir George Bonham is expected to arrive in England in the course of the present month, His Lordship thinks it desirable to postpone any decision, in regard to the question of the securities taken for Duties at Shanghae during the time that the Chinese Custom-house was in abeyance, until he shall have had an opportunity of personally communicating with Sir George Bonham. Her Majesty's Government will come to a decision on the subject as soon as Sir George Bonham returns to this country; and Lord Clarendon conceives that the arrangement which will be finally arrived at by the adoption of this course, even though it may occasion some slight delay in forwarding instructions to Sir John Bowring, will probably be more satisfactory than one made without the benefit of previous consultation with Sir George Bonham,—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, E. HAMMOND. And on the 4th of July, 1854, Mr. Hammond wrote to the Association of Merchants at Liverpool, as follows:— Foreign Office, July 4, 1854. Sir,—With reference to the correspondence which has passed between you and this office respecting the securities taken by Her Majesty's 1246 Consuls at Shanghae for duties which, in consequence of the state of affairs at that port, the Chinese authorities were themselves unable to collect, I am directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acquaint you that, after communication with Sir George Bonham and upon a full consideration of the question in all its bearings, Her Majesty's Government have decided that those securities shall be cancelled and returned to the parties by whom they were given, and instructions to that effect will be sent by the next mail to Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary and Chief Superintendent of British Trade in India,—I am, &c., E. HAMMOND. Now, presuming that instructions had been sent out in accordance with Lord Clarendon's promise which he had no right to doubt; what he wished to know on behalf of the British merchants in China, and of the merchants in this country interested in the China trade, was, why the bonds taken between the 9th of February and the 12th of July last had not been cancelled by Sir John Bowling in obedience to those instructions? He could conceive no answer to that question, except that Sir John Bowring was now exercising his own discretion in opposition to the discretion and instructions of Her Majesty's Government. All he desired was, that the British merchants should be placed on the same footing in this matter as the American merchants, so that the trade of this country with China might suffer no disadvantage. What the mercantile community required and what he thought it had a right to ask was, the cancelment of all bonds taken both before and after the 9th February; the nonintervention of British officials in the collection of the Chinese revenue, and the strict fulfilment of the treaty, that British subjects should be placed upon the same commercial footing as the subjects of other countries.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Instructions having reference to Trade, sent out by Her Majesty's Government to Her Majesty's Superintendent of Trade in China, subsequent to the 1st day of February 1854; also, of the Correspondence subsequent to that date, between Der Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Superintendent of Trade, having reference to British Trade in China, up to the present time.