An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the Second International Conference on Sinology held at Academia Sinica, Taipei, 28–31 December 1986.

¹ See En-han, Lee, China's Quest for Railway Autonomy 1904–1911 (Singapore, 1977).Google Scholar

² The United States agreed to the same treatment over its nationals in a treaty concluded in December 1920, subject to the right of evocation until five years after all the Siamese modern codes had come into force.

³ See Fishel, Wesley R., The End of Extraterritoriality in China (Berkeley, 1974), ch. 10Google Scholar;Chan, K. C., ‘The Abolition of British Extraterritoriality in China 1942–43; A Study of Anglo-American–Chinese Relations’, Modern Asian Studies, II, 2 (1977), 257–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Enhan, Li (Lee En-han), ‘Beifa qianhou shouhui guanshui zizhuquan di jiaoshe—Guomin zhengfu “geming waijiao” di yanjiu zhi yi’, Zhonghua minguo jianguo shi taolunji (Taibei, 1981), III, 358–406.Google Scholar

⁵ Fairbank, John K., China Perceived: Images and Politics in Chinese—American Relations (London, 1976), p. 86.Google Scholar

⁶ Fairbank, John K., ‘The Creation of the Treaty System’, in Fairbank, John K. (ed.), The Cambridge History of China, vol. x (Cambridge, 1978), p. 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Chung, Tan, ‘The Unequal Treaty System: Infrastructure of Irresponsible Imperialism’, China Report, XVII, 5 (1981), 1–31.Google Scholar

⁸ On the theory of informal empire, see Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, VI (1953), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Jürgen Osterhammel, ‘Semi-Colonialism and Informal Empire in Twentieth-Century China: Towards a Framework of Analysis’, in Mommsen, Wolfgang J. and Osterhammel, Jürgen (eds), Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities (London, 1986), pp. 290–314.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cited in Fishel, End of Extraterritoriality, p. 55.Google Scholar

¹¹ There has been a debate on the positive and negative effects of foreign imperialism on China's economic development. See, for instance, the special section on imperialism in China in the Bulletin of the Concerned Asian Scholars, IV, 4 (12 1972), 2–16.Google Scholar

¹² See, for example, Kai-shek, Chiang, ‘Zhongguo zhi mingyun’, in Xiaoyi, Qin (ed.), Jiang Zongtong ji (Taibei, 1974), I, 130–6.Google Scholar

¹³ Hsia, Ching-lin, Studies in Chinese Diplomatic History (Shanghai, 1925), p. xi.Google Scholar A number of articles on this doctrine were published by Chinese writers in 1928 and 1929. See, for example, Huang, R. T., ‘Termination and Revision of China's “Unequal” Treaties’, China Weekly Review, 10 10 1928, pp. 22–4Google Scholar; Ch'ung-hui, Wang, ‘The National Government from a Legal, Diplomatic and Reconstruction Standpoint’, China Weekly Review, 9 02 1929, pp. 462–3Google Scholar; Shichuan, Zhu. ‘Duiyu Guomin zhengfu chengli hou waijiao shang jingguo zhi ganxiang ji weilai zhi xiwang’, Zhongwei pinglun, 25 (10 08 1929), 15–20.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Zhongguo Guomindang dangshi weiyuan hui (ed.), Geming wenxian, LXIX, 89.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 92–3.

¹⁶ Wilson, David C., ‘Britain and the Kuomintang, 1924–28’, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of London, 1973, p. 44.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Jacobs, Dan. Borodin: Stalin's Man in China (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), p. 129.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Yat-sen, Sun, Guofu quanji, ed. Guomindang, Zhongguo dangshi weiyuan hui (Taibei, 1981), I, 16–17.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., I, 35.

²⁰ Ibid., I, 2–3.

²¹ Ibid., I, 15–24.

²² Ibid., I, 919.

²³ Jingwei, Wang, Wang Jingwei ji (Shanghai, 1932), II, 124, 193.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Robinson, Ronald, ‘Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism: Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration’, in Owen, E. R. J. and Sutclifte, B. (eds) Studies in the Theory of Imperialism (London, 1972), pp. 117–40Google Scholar; Robinson, R., ‘European Imperialism and Indigenous Reactions in British West Africa, 1880–1914; in Wesseling, H. L. (ed.), Expansion and Reaction: Essays on European Expansion and Reaction in Asia and Africa (Leiden, 1978), pp. 141–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Jingwei, Wang, II, 202–3.Google Scholar

²⁶ Geming wenxian, LXXIX, 21–3.Google Scholar

²⁷ Geming wenxian, LXIX, 161–6.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hanmin, Hu, Hu Hanmin xiansheng wenji, ed. Guomindang, Zhongguo dangshi weiyuan hui (Taibei, 1978), II, 161.Google Scholar

²⁹ For the ‘Washington formula’ see Borg, Dorothy, American Policy and the Chinese Revolution, 1925–1928 (New York, reprint, 1968), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Wai-chor, So, ‘The Western Hills Group in the National Revolution (1924–1928): A Study of the Ideology and Politics within the Kuomintang’, M.A. thesis, University of Hong Kong, 1981, especially ch. 1.Google Scholar

³¹ See, for example, Cavendish, Patrick, ‘Anti-Imperialism in the Kuomintang 1923–8’, in Ch'en, Jerome and Tarling, Nicholas (eds), Studies in the Social History of China and South-East Asia (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 23–56.Google Scholar

³² Jilu, Huang, ‘Hua shidai Guomin shisannian diyici quanguo daibiao dahui di huiyi’, Zhanggu, 41 (01 1975), 7–9; 42 (02 1975), 23–5.Google Scholar Huang, then a very young party member representing the Canadian party branch headquarters, claimed that he had been most vociferous in arguing successfully against the inclusion when the draft statement was assessed by a committee. He did not refer to the ‘right-wingers’ and claimed also that it was Sun Yat-sen who later insisted on putting the ‘abrogation’ part back.

³³ For a short study of Sun's concept of imperialism and its relation with foreign investment, see Gregor, James and Chang, M. Hsia, ‘Marxism, Sun Yat-sen, and the concept of “imperialism”’, Pacific Affairs, LV, 1 (1982), 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ In October 1923 Sun asserted his claims to Guangzhou's share of the customs surplus, and threatened to seize it if the powers did not comply with his wish. The powers' answer was a show of force. See Wilbur, C. Martin, Sun Yat-sen: Frustrated Patriot (New York, 1976), pp. 183–90.Google Scholar

³⁵ Wilbur, C. Martin, The Nationalist Revolution in China 1923–1928 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 10.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Rigby, Richard W., The May 30 Movement: Events and Themes (Canberra, 1980)Google Scholar; Clifford, Nicholas R., Shanghai, 1925: Urban Nationalism and the Defense of Foreign Privilege (Ann Arbor, 1979).Google Scholar

³⁷ Yizhang, Qian, Shaji tongshi (n.p., n.d.), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar

³⁸ For a study of British relations with the Nationalists during the Guangzhou period, see Clark, Peter G., ‘Britain and the Chinese Revolution, 1925–1927’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1973Google Scholar; Wilson, ‘Britain and the Kuomintang, 1924–28’.

³⁹ Geming wenxian, LXIX, 140–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 151–2.

⁴¹ The warlords Wu Peifu and Sun Chuanfang were equally opposed to the opening of the conference for similar reasons. See Wright, Stanley F., China's Struggle for Tariff Autonomy, 1843–1938 (Shanghai, 1938), pp. 464–5.Google Scholar

⁴² King, Wunsz (ed.), V. K. Wellington Koo's Foreign Policy: Some Selected Documents (Shanghai, 1931), pp. 48–54.Google Scholar

⁴³ See En-han, Lee, China's Recovery of the British Hankow and Kiukiang Concessions in 1927 (Perth, 1980).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Gengsheng, Zhou, Geming di waijiao (Shanghai, 1929), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See the preface to the British offer of January 1927 concerning the treaty alteration. Owen O'Malley's communication to Eugene Chen, 27 January 1927 [F 9532/2/10], F.O. 371/12400.

⁴⁶ Fung, Edmund S. K., ‘Anti-Imperialism and the Left Guomindang’, Modern China, XI, 1 (01 1985), 56–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Fung, Edmund S. K., ‘The Sino-British Rapprochement, 1927–1931’, Modern Asian Studies, XVII, 1 (04 1983), 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Waijiaobu, , Waijiaobu gongbao, I, 3 (07 1928), 132–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Lampson to Foreign Office, No. 1226, 30 October 1928 [F 5911/7/10], F.O. 371/13173.

⁵⁰ The Times (London), 12 01 1929.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Wang, C. T., ‘Looking Forward and Looking Backward’, unpublished memoir held at the East Asian Library, Columbia University, ch. 14, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

⁵² Such ideas had been discussed among some British politicians in 1924. They were raised again in 1930 but not with the Chinese who were not inclined to submit the question to such a procedure. During the whole of 1930, while China was convulsed with civil war and ravaged by bandits, an expert committee of the League would investigate the conditions under which extraterritoriality could be abolished. As the British Foreign Office observed, an inquiry conducted in such circumstances could only result in a report and recommendations of such a nature as to irritate the Chinese and render the situation more difficult to all concerned. See minutes on telegram from Lampson to Henderson, 22 December 1930, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, Second Series, Vol. VIII, ed. Butler, Rohan et al. (London, 1960), pp. 452–3.Google Scholar (Hereafter referred to as DBFP.)

⁵³ Fishel, , End of Extraterritoriality, p. 147.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Iriye, Akira, After Imperialism: The Search for a New Order in the Far East 1921–1931 (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 235.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Fishel, , End of Extraterritoriality, pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Xiaoyi, Qin (ed.), Jiang Zongtong ji, I, 518–21.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hanmin, Hu, II, 323–5; III, 429.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Geming wenxian, LXXII, 216–17.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For motives that remain unclear today, Nationalist troops, on 27 May 1929, raided the Soviet consulate in Harbin and seized certain secret documents purporting to show Russian involvement in Chinese Communist activities. On 10 July they suddenly took over the Chinese Eastern Railway, which was jointly controlled by the two countries under the Sino-Soviet Agreement of 1924, dismissed all the Soviet heads of departments and divisions and expelled other Soviet railway staff and citizens. During the ensuing war, the Chinese received no sympathy from the Western Powers or Japan because their action was seen as a violation of treaty rights under international law.

⁶⁰ Fung, , ‘Anti-Imperialism and the Left Guomindang’, pp. 39–76Google Scholar; for a more comprehensive treatment of the Left during this period, see Wai-chor, So, ‘The Kuomintang Left in Opposition, 1928–1931: The Leftist Alternative in Chinese Polities’, unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, 1986.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Such concern was frequently expressed in the communications between London and the British legation in Beijing. See, for example, Foreign Office memorandum respecting the prospects of stable government in China, 19 July 1930, DBFP, pp. 384–88.

⁶² Woodhead, H. G. W., Extraterritoriality in China: The Case Against Abolition (New York, reprint, 1980), p. 12.Google Scholar

⁶³ Fishel, , End of Extraterritoriality, p. 169 and p. 283 note 7.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For a summary of the negotiations from March to June 1931, see Lampson to Henderson, 8 June 1931, DBFP, pp. 559–601.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See, for example, statements by Wang Chonghui and Wang Zhengting in February and April 1932, Zhongyang zhoubao, no. 142, 23 February 1931 and no. 149, 13 April 1931; Dagong bao (Tianjin), 21 February and 20 and 22 April 1931.

⁶⁶ ‘Chexiao lingshi caipanquan’, Guoshiguan, Zongtongfu dang'an, Wai 04.1/3.

⁶⁷ Lampson, to Henderson, , 8 06 1931, DBFP, pp. 578–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Waijiaobu, , Waijiaobu gongbao, IV, 1 (05 1931), 106–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Geming wenxian, LXIX, 227–30.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Lampson, to Simon, , 12 11 1931, DBFP, p. 622.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Henderson, to Lindsay, , 7 03 1931, DBFP, p. 478.Google Scholar

⁷² Sino-American negotiations had begun in Washington in 1930 between the Chinese minister, C. C. Wu, and the State Department. In 1931, for a variety of reasons, the State Department wanted to transfer the talks to Nanjing. See Fishel, , End of Extraterritoriality, pp. 173–87.Google Scholar

⁷³ Henderson, to Lampson, , 22 06 1931, DBFP, pp. 604–5.Google Scholar