Page:Brinkley - China - Volume 2.djvu/135

for his own profit. Illegal, however, it certainly is not, for it has the sanction of imperial decrees, though a more inexpedient impost in the interests of trade could scarcely be conceived. Whether it can be called illegal when imposed on goods imported from abroad by foreign merchants, or on Chinese produce or manufactures destined for export by foreign merchants, is a point more difficult to decide conclusively. The earliest treaty (that of Nanking in 1842) provided that after British merchandise had " once paid the regulated customs and dues " at any of the open ports " such merchandise might be conveyed by hinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China on paying a further amount as transit duty which should not exceed 2*^ per cent on the tariff value of such goods." It cannot be reasonably doubted that the intention of the framers of the treaty was to exempt British merchandise from all additional dues on its way into the interior of the country. Subsequently the provision was made still clearer by the second treaty (that of Tientsin in 1858), where not only the case of imports but also that of exports was disposed of, and it was added that " no further duty " should be levied on merchandise which had received a transi certificate. But likin did not exist in 1842; it was first imposed in 1853. Therefore the question assumed this form: Was likin a tax of such a nature as to be included in the "further duties"