1877년 長江六處章程과 淸政府의 洋・民船 정책
The Regulations of the Six stages on the Yangtze in 1877 and Foreign and Native Vessels Policy in the Late Qing China
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Due to the Chefoo Convention(芝罘條約) in 1876, the new treaty ports of Wuhu(蕪湖) and Ichang(宜昌), along with Tatong(大通), Anqing(安慶), Hukou(湖口) Wuxue(武穴), Lujikou(陸溪口), and Shashi(沙市) were designated as the six stages on the Yangtze, allowing a temporary anchoring of the steamer. Although it was the Qing government that had foreign vessels bound to the treaty ports, concerns have arisen that the designation of the six stages on the Yangtze may create a loophole in the policy of distinguishing ‘foreign’ and ‘native’ vessels. Thus, the Qing government first stipulated in the treaty that since the six stages on the Yangtze belongs to the interior rather than a port of commerce, the steamer should be loaded and unloaded using the native vessels, and not in accordance with the treaty, but the Maritime Customs duty and Likin(釐金) to be paid and independently handled by the local government. This paper analyzes the discussions between the central and provincial authorities in the Qing government surrounding the six stages on the Yangtze after the Chefoo Convention in 1876 and how Qing government controlled and distinguished ‘foreign’ and ‘native’ in the new trade environment under the designation of the six stages on the Yangtze. The main discussion of the regulations of the six stages on the Yangtze was how to control the operation of the steamer in the six stages and how to compensate for the losses by collecting the Customs duty and Likin as well as how to manage and distinguish the treaty ports and the six stages. On the plan of the Hankow Customs(江漢關) for example, the dispatch office of the Maritime Customs were to installed on the six stages for the management and taxation on the steamship, to divide cargo from the six stages to the treaty ports and to impose a difference in taxes on the cargo from six stages to the other stages. But the Customs duty and Likin were to be treated separately and the collected Likin had to be sent to the Likin Office(釐金局) in the province. On the other hand, Robert Hart's plan was to use existing manuals, systems and institutions for each ports and stages, and to register public line for loading and unloading cargo. He was also pessimistic about treating the Customs Duty and Likin separately, insisting that Likin was replenished from the collected Customs Duty. However, Li Hung-chang(李鴻章) opposed Hart's claim to collect the Customs duty and replenish Likin. The Customs duty and Likin should not only be treated separately, but also should not be treated the same as in ordinary terms, since the six stages were the interior as well. According to the Regulations of the six stages on the Yangtze in 1877, the steamer participating in the six stages were restricted to the river steamers, and only registered cargo-boats were to load and unload cargo. The Customs duty was imposed differently in each case, from stages to other stages, from stages to treaty ports, and from ports to stages. And Likin was to be settled in a lump sum, not supplemented form the Customs duty. In this way, despite the designation of the six stages, the Qing government could restrict the foreign vessels to the treaty ports, manage them separately, while preventing the mix of the Customs duty and Likin.
Abstract
Due to the Chefoo Convention(芝罘條約) in 1876, the new treaty ports of Wuhu(蕪湖) and Ichang(宜昌), along with Tatong(大通), Anqing(安慶), Hukou(湖口) Wuxue(武穴), Lujikou(陸溪口), and Shashi(沙市) were designated as the six stages on the Yangtze, allowing a temporary anchoring of the steamer. Although it was the Qing government that had foreign vessels bound to the treaty ports, concerns have arisen that the designation of the six stages on the Yangtze may create a loophole in the policy of distinguishing ‘foreign’ and ‘native’ vessels. Thus, the Qing government first stipulated in the treaty that since the six stages on the Yangtze belongs to the interior rather than a port of commerce, the steamer should be loaded and unloaded using the native vessels, and not in accordance with the treaty, but the Maritime Customs duty and Likin(釐金) to be paid and independently handled by the local government. This paper analyzes the discussions between the central and provincial authorities in the Qing government surrounding the six stages on the Yangtze after the Chefoo Convention in 1876 and how Qing government controlled and distinguished ‘foreign’ and ‘native’ in the new trade environment under the designation of the six stages on the Yangtze. The main discussion of the regulations of the six stages on the Yangtze was how to control the operation of the steamer in the six stages and how to compensate for the losses by collecting the Customs duty and Likin as well as how to manage and distinguish the treaty ports and the six stages. On the plan of the Hankow Customs(江漢關) for example, the dispatch office of the Maritime Customs were to installed on the six stages for the management and taxation on the steamship, to divide cargo from the six stages to the treaty ports and to impose a difference in taxes on the cargo from six stages to the other stages. But the Customs duty and Likin were to be treated separately and the collected Likin had to be sent to the Likin Office(釐金局) in the province. On the other hand, Robert Hart's plan was to use existing manuals, systems and institutions for each ports and stages, and to register public line for loading and unloading cargo. He was also pessimistic about treating the Customs Duty and Likin separately, insisting that Likin was replenished from the collected Customs Duty. However, Li Hung-chang(李鴻章) opposed Hart's claim to collect the Customs duty and replenish Likin. The Customs duty and Likin should not only be treated separately, but also should not be treated the same as in ordinary terms, since the six stages were the interior as well. According to the Regulations of the six stages on the Yangtze in 1877, the steamer participating in the six stages were restricted to the river steamers, and only registered cargo-boats were to load and unload cargo. The Customs duty was imposed differently in each case, from stages to other stages, from stages to treaty ports, and from ports to stages. And Likin was to be settled in a lump sum, not supplemented form the Customs duty. In this way, despite the designation of the six stages, the Qing government could restrict the foreign vessels to the treaty ports, manage them separately, while preventing the mix of the Customs duty and Likin.
참고문헌 (24)
- 總理各國事務衙門清檔, "臺灣中央硏究院近代史硏究所檔案館藏", ~
- Robert Bickers, (2004), Thomson Gale
- 顧廷龍, "李鴻章全集 全39冊" (2008), 安徽敎育出版社
- 吳元炳輯, "沈文肅公政書" (1967), 文海出版社
- 王鐵崖, "中外舊約章彙編 全3冊" (1957), 生活・讀書・新知三聯書店
- "China. Maritime Customs. I.-Statistical Series: No.4, Reports on trade at the treaty ports for the year..." (1882)[URL]
- 楊梅, "晩清中央與地方財政關係硏究―以釐金為中心" (2012), 知識産權出版社
- 濱下武志, "中國近代經濟史硏究 : 淸末海關財政と開港場市場圈" (1989), 東京大學東洋文化硏究所
- 何烈, "釐金制度新探" (1972), 私立東吳大學中國學術著作奬助委員會
- Dean, Britten, "China and Great Britain: the diplomacy of commercial relations, 1860-1864" (1974), East Asian Research Center, Harvard University
- Sargent, A. J., "Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy(mainly in the nineteenth century)" (1907), Clarendon Press
- Wang S. T., "The Margary Affair and the Chefoo Agreement" (1940), Oxford University Press
- 김현정, "청말 장강유역의 洋商民船 관할문제에 관하여 ― 九江, 漢口의 사례를 중심으로 ―", 동양사학연구, (148), pp.287~328 (2019), 동양사학회
- 김현정, "漢口의 紅茶牙行과 兩江總督의 茶葉落地稅 徵收 ― 19세기 후반 長江에서의 “洋”과 “華”의 구별 ―", 명청사연구, (52), pp.427~459 (2019), 명청사학회[DOI]
- 戴一峰, "論晩清的子口稅與釐金", 中國社會經濟史硏究, (4) (1993)
- 本野英一, "上海に於ける輸出子口半稅制度規制の挫折―崇明烏棉花買付體制の背後にある中英經濟秩序理念", 國際基督敎大學學報, III-A(アジア文化硏究別冊十一) (2002)
- 神戸輝夫, "マーガリ事件をめぐる英清交渉―ウェードの第一次北京離脫まで", 東洋史硏究, 44(2) (1985)
- 楊敬敏, "從“洋貨”到“國貨”―晚清長江流域貿易規則的構建與發展", 海關與經貿硏究, 36(06) (2015)
- 楊文華, "論中法戰爭以前釐金與子口稅的消長變遷", 史學月刊, (1) (1989)
- 楊秀雲, "赫德與晩清中外約章硏究", 博士, pp.2014
- 廖聲豊, "百年來釐金硏究述評", 中國社會經濟史硏究, (4) (2012)
- 張靜, "芻議郭嵩燾與滇案和《芝罘條約》交涉", 綏化師專學報, 21(03) (2001)
- 翟后柱, "中國海關與中國近代社會―陳詩啓敎授九秩華誕祝壽文集" (2005), 廈門大學出版社
- 村上衛, "長江流域社會の歷史景觀" (2013), 京都大學人文科學硏究所附屬現代中國硏究センター
