광동체제下 粵海關의 결산 지연과 戶部의 대응 ― 건륭 43년(1778) 결산 기한의 설정을 중심으로 ―

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to analyze causes that led to the Yuehaiguan(粵海關)’s delay in tax revenue settlement and the response of the Imperial Household Department(戶部). As the only foreign trade customs office during the period of the Canton System(廣東體制), the very existence of the Yuehaiguan was considered heterogeneous to the Queguan System. Not only was the recorded change in yearly tax revenue irregular, but also monthly tax revenue varied greatly due to the trade winds. However, the Imperial Household Department operated Yuehaiguan within the Queguan System which was a system optimized under the flat-rate principle(定額主義); as a result around 1747, the Yuehaiguan marked a series of deficits in its tax revenue settlements. And on the basis of these series of events, the Imperial Household Department fixed the accounting period of each Queguan to 12-month cycles. Each Queguan’s accounting period was 12 months by regulation, but an accounting settlement conducted each time a new head of the Queguan was instated resulted in varying accounting periods. The Imperial Household Department relied on the previous year’s average tax revenue as the standard for evaluation, which was not suitable for a Yuehaiguan thats monthly tax revenue varied greatly; the differing accounting period by Queguan made it even more difficult to assess the consistency of each evaluation. However, in 1750, instead of acknowledging the difficulties and exceptions required by the Yuehaiguan, the Imperial Household Department responded by strengthening the integrity of the Queguan system by unifying the accounting period of all Queguan to 12 months, regardless of any replacements to its leading officials.However, this decision resulted in a completely unexpected outcome: the term of the fiscal year differed from the lunar calender year. While the lunar calendar was mostly a designated period of 12 months, in reality it included leap months, fiscal year was a designated period of the lunar calendar, it carried with it leap months, making resulting in a 13-month accounting cycle for the fiscal year as opposed to the goal of a 12-month cycle. Since the accounting period of the Queguans was fixed at 12 months, each leap month was carried forward to the next fiscal year. Each Queguan’s official's fiscal year was pulled forward a period of one month every leap month, but the Yuehaiguan did not adjust its tax settlement period to reflect these changes. In the end, the accumulation of the carried forward leap months combined with the Yuehaiguan's incomplete tax administration, resulted in a delay in the settling of tax revenue accounts.In 1778, recognizing the delay in settlement of accounts of Yuehaiguan, the Imperial Household Department responded by residing with Emperor Qianlong to once again change the accounting period to a term of 6 months. However, Qianlong's response was not so positive. Here, the Imperial Household Department reapplied the strategic approach taken in 1764. By converting the problem of delayed tax revenue settlements into an issue of tax deficits, they succeeded in inducing a change with the Emperor.The incomplete settlement of tax revenues by the Yuehaiguan seems to have been closely related to the ‘right to operate tariffs’ derived from the proxy tax structure. Of course, the right to operate tariffs was not an officially recognized authority, but it was possible for the Hong merchants in charge of Yuehaiguan’s customs administrations to use the collected tariffs as cash business funds until the accounting was settled. In fact, it was tantamount to holding the right to operate tariffs, a stable and large sum of currency considering the financial environment, that in turn played an important role in securing cash liquidity.However, due to the shortening of the settlement period, the availability of tariffs for the Hong merchants as business funds was reduced from 12 to 18 months to 6 months, seemingly a factor of the increase in costs resulting from the negative impact to cash liquidity. The fact that many of these Hong merchant's declare bankruptcy after these changes are imposed reflect the close ties between the adjustment in Yuegiaugna tax settlement period and the reduction of the customs office operation period. This also shows the reasoning behind the attempted extension of the settlement period from 6 to 9 months by Lee hu(李湖) of the Governor of Guangdong Province, despite heavy political risk. Due to the trade winds, active trade in Canton was limited to a six-month period, followed by a six-month non-trade, off-season. The Canton system, where time and space is deemed precious, Hong merchants were required to secure all products during the off-season for the next active trade season, an objective which required large cash liquidity. This vicious cycle required 6-months to procure all items, and another 3-months to generate cash and prepare customs administrations, hence the importance of the settlement period extending from 6 to 9 months. In conclusion, the Imperial Household Department was very clear on its position on trade in Canton and the uniqueness of the Yuehaiguan. The Imperial Household Department recognized the proxy tax structure of the Yuehaiguan in terms of “adapting to local conditions(因地制宜)”, but failed to recognize any exceptions that deviated from the administrative taxation processes prescribed by each Queguan. The policy direction of the Imperial Household Department has been consistently since the establishment of the Canton System; In terms of finances, this stance only seems to grow stronger proportionate to the importance placed on the Yuehiaguan. Contrary to our understanding so far, instead of standing out as the only foreign trade customs in Qing period, Yuehaiguan has rather strengthened its centripetal power as the Queguan System and moved toward enhancing its homogeneity with trade customs.