Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T17:41:57.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMAGINING THE RUSSIAN CONCESSION IN HANKOU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2018

ALAN CRAWFORD
ALAN CRAWFORD*
Affiliation:
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
*
School of Humanities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Rd, Shanghai, Chinaalancrawford@sjtu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1896, the Russian empire established a territorial concession in the Chinese treaty port of Hankou. Russian activity in the treaty ports has usually been subsumed into a wider ‘European’ or ‘Western’ presence, the assumption being that the Russian empire copied existing British and French concessions. This article traces the development of the idea of establishing a Russian concession from its inception to the early years of its development. The various arguments made at different stages in this process make clear that the decision was not a simple case of imitation of existing concessions, but was reached in the context of a broader shift in ideas about the proper relationship between economy, nation, and the Russian imperial state.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 969 - 989
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the text of the agreement, see Skachkov, P. E. and Miasnikov, V. S., eds., Russko-kitaiskie otnosheniia, 1689–1916: ofitsial'nye dokumenty (Russo-Chinese relations, 1689–1916: official documents) (Moscow, 1958), pp. 69–70Google Scholar. Note that dates in the body of the article are according to the modern Gregorian calendar. Dates of Russian diplomatic correspondence in footnotes give the Gregorian date first followed in brackets by the date according to the Julian calendar in use in Russia until 1918, which was twelve days behind the Gregorian calendar in the nineteenth century and thirteen in the twentieth.

2 Exceptions are Datsyshen, V. G., ‘Russkie v Khan'kou: iz istorii rossiisko-kitaiskikh otnoshenii vtoroi poloviny XIX – pervoi poloviny XX v.’ (Russians in Hankou: from the history of Russian–Chinese relations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries), Rossiia i Kitai: Nauchnye i Kul'turnye Sviazi, 2 (St Petersburg, 2012), pp. 67–80Google Scholar; and Eiermann, K., ‘The Russian concession in Wuhan (1896–1925): imperialism and great power rivalry’, Comparativ, 15 (2005), pp. 39–49Google Scholar.

3 See Cassel, P., Grounds of judgment: extraterritoriality and imperial power in nineteenth-century China and Japan (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar.

4 Dean, B., ‘Sino-British diplomacy in the 1860s: the establishment of the British concession at Hankow’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 32 (1972), pp. 71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Morse, H. B., International relations of the Chinese empire, iii (London, 1918), p. 122Google Scholar.

6 The classic critique of this approach is Cohen, P. A., Discovering history in China: American historical writing on the recent Chinese past (New York, NY, 1984)Google Scholar.

7 Westad, O. A., Restless empire: China and the world since 1750 (London, 2012), p. 62Google Scholar.

8 This point is made in Hanneman, S., the, ‘Moving beyond “unequal treaties”’, Frontiers of History in China, 7 (2012), pp. 344–75Google Scholar, at p. 345. Recent work looking beyond the British and Shanghai includes Goodman, B. and Goodman, D., eds., Twentieth-century colonialism and China: localities, the everyday, and the world (Abingdon, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bickers, R. and Jackson, I., eds., Treaty ports in modern China: law, land and power (Abingdon, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogaski, R., Hygienic modernity: meanings of health and disease in treaty port China (Berkeley, CA, 2004)Google Scholar.

9 Lieven, D., ‘Dilemmas of empire, 1850–1918: power, territory, identity’, Journal of Contemporary History, 34 (1999), pp. 163–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Russian empire in comparative perspective, see Gerasimov, I., Kusber, J., and Semyonov, A., eds., Empire speaks out: languages of rationalization and self-description in the Russian empire (Leiden, 2009), pp. 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Morrison, A., ‘How “modern” was Russian imperialism?’, in Uyama, T., ed., Empire and after: essays in comparative imperial and decolonization studies (Sapporo, 2012), pp. 1–17Google Scholar.

10 Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R., ‘The imperialism of free trade’, Economic History Review, 6 (1953), pp. 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Osterhammel, J., ‘Britain and China, 1842–1914’, in Porter, A., ed., The Oxford history of the British empire, iii: The nineteenth century (Oxford, 1999), pp. 146–69Google Scholar. For some qualifications, see Dean, B., ‘British informal empire: the case of China’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 14 (1976), pp. 64–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Lieven, D., Empire: the Russian empire and its rivals (London, 2000), p. 267Google Scholar.

12 Darwin, J., The empire project: the rise and fall of the British world-system, 1830–1970 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Said, E., ‘Representing the colonized: anthropology's interlocutors’, Critical Inquiry, 15 (1989), pp. 205–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 218.

14 Fairbank, J. K., ‘The creation of the treaty system’, in Fairbank, J. K., ed., The Cambridge history of China, x: The late Ch'ing, 1800–1911, part 1 (Cambridge, 1978), p. 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Burbank, J. and Hagen, M. von, ‘Coming into the territory: uncertainty and empire’, in Burbank, J., von Hagen, M., and Remnev, A., eds., Russian empire: space, people, power, 1700–1930 (Bloomington, IN, 2007), p. 21Google Scholar.

16 Stoler, A. and McGranahan, C., ‘Introduction: refiguring imperial terrains’, in Stoler, A., McGranahan, C., and Perdue, P., eds., Imperial formations (Santa Fe, NM, 2007), pp. 3–42Google Scholar.

17 Anderson, B., Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised edn, London, 2006), pp. 4Google Scholar, 81.

18 Stoler and McGranahan, ‘Introduction’, pp. 14–15.

19 Howe, A., ‘Free trade and global order: the rise and fall of a Victorian vision’, in Bell, D., ed., Victorian visions of global order: empire and international relations in nineteenth-century political thought (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 32–7Google Scholar.

20 Fairbank, ‘Creation of the treaty system’, pp. 216–17, 237–43.

21 Jackson, I., Shaping modern Shanghai: colonialism in China's global city (Cambridge, 2017), p. 7Google Scholar.

22 Giquel to Hart, 1 Feb. 1866, Reports from the foreign commissioners at the various ports in China, for the year 1865 (London, 1867), p. 98Google Scholar.

23 Bickers, R., The scramble for China: foreign devils in the Qing empire, 1832–1914 (London, 2011), p. 155Google Scholar; see also Bickers, R., ‘British concessions and Chinese cities, 1910s–1930s’, in So, B. K. L. and Zelin, M., eds., New narratives of urban space in Republican Chinese cities: emerging social, legal and governance orders (Leiden, 2013), pp. 164–8Google Scholar.

24 I. Goncharov, Frigate Pallada (1855), quoted in Lim, S. S., China and Japan in the Russian imagination, 1685–1922 (Abingdon, 2013), p. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Ibid., p. 89.

26 Howe, ‘Free trade’, p. 34.

27 Quested, R. K. I., The expansion of Russia in Asia, 1857–1860 (Kuala Lumpur, 1968)Google Scholar.

28 Bassin, M., Imperial visions: nationalist imagination and geographical expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840–1865 (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 147–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Quested, Expansion of Russia, pp. 107–8.

30 Paine, S. C. M., Imperial rivals: China, Russia, and their disputed frontier (Armonk, NY, 1996), pp. 58–70Google Scholar.

31 Mancall, M., Russia and China: their diplomatic relations to 1728 (Cambridge, MA, 1971), p. 275Google Scholar.

32 Thompstone, S., ‘Russia's tea traders: a neglected segment of a still neglected entrepreneurial class’, Culture, Theory and Critique, 24 (1980), pp. 131–63Google Scholar, at p. 132.

33 ‘Russkii klub v Khan'kou…1897–1922: kratkii istoricheskii ocherk' (The Russian Club in Hankou…1897–1922: a short historical essay), Hoover Institution Archives (HIA), Bel'chenko papers, box 24, folder 13.

34 O Russkoi torgovle v Khan'kou za 1869 god (On Russian trade in Hankou for 1869) (Moscow, 1870), p. 9Google Scholar.

35 Nadarov, V., Materialy k izucheniiu Khan'kou (Materials for study of Hankou) (Vladivostok, 1901), p. 81Google Scholar.

36 Quoted in Datsyshen, ‘Russkie v Khan'kou’, p. 70.

37 Giquel to Hart, 1 Feb. 1866, Reports from the foreign commissioners, p. 98.

38 Shishkin to Ivashchenkov, 29 (17) Sept. 1895, Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archive, RGIA), f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 1, mentions the petition; Vakhovich is credited in Nadarov, Materialy k izucheniiu Khan'kou, p. 81; and Pavlenkov, L. N., Pamiati Aleksandra Vakhovicha, Russkii konsul v Khan'kou (Memories of Aleksandr Vakhovich, Russian consul in Hankou) (St Petersburg, 1904), p. 7Google Scholar.

39 Kotenev, A. M., Big trifles and little people: memoirs of a Russian nobleman (Lincoln, NB, 2000), p. 120Google Scholar.

40 Quoted in I. V. Lukoianov, ‘Ne otstat' ot derzhav…’: Rossiia na Dal'nem Vostoke v kontse XIX – nachale XX vv. (‘To keep up with the powers…’: Russia in the Far East in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) (St Petersburg, 2008), p. 120.

41 Kassini to Ministerstvo Inostrannykh Del' (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MID), 19 (7) Sept. 1895, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 2.

42 C. Vapereau, ‘De Pékin a Paris’, Le Tour du Monde, 67, 12 (Mar. 1894), pp. 177–272, at pp. 182, 199. On Shevelev, see Thompstone, ‘Russia's tea traders’, p. 145; and Shevelev, M. G., Srochnoe parokhodnoe soobshchenie mezhdu Khan'kou i Nikolaevskom (Direct steamship communication between Hankou and Nikolaevsk) (St Petersburg, 1880)Google Scholar.

43 Bagurin, A., Dobrovol'nyi flot i ego zadachi (The Volunteer Fleet and its missions) (St Petersburg, 1888), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

44 O Russkoi torgovle v Khan'kou, p. 10.

45 Commercial report of consulate in Hankou for 1894, Arkhiv Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Imperii (Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Empire, AVPRI), f. 143, o. 491, d. 396, l. 150.

46 Dmitrievskii to Dept. of Internal Affairs, MID, 13 (1) July 1885, AVPRI, f. 143, o. 491, d. 384, ll. 5–6.

47 Beresford, C., The break-up of China (London, 1899), pp. 153–4Google Scholar.

48 Paine, S. C. M., The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895: perceptions, power, and primacy (New York, NY, 2003), pp. 265–71Google Scholar.

49 Paine, Sino-Japanese War, pp. 281–8.

50 Ibid., pp. 304–5.

51 Lukoianov, ‘Ne otstat' ot derzhav…’, p. 163.

52 Quoted in Wcislo, F., Tales of imperial Russia: the life and times of Sergei Witte, 1849–1915 (Oxford, 2011), p. 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 For recent contributions, see Steinberg, J. W., Menning, B. W., van der Oye, D. S., Wolff, D., and Yokote, S., eds., The Russo-Japanese War in global perspective: World War Zero, i (Leiden, 2005), pp. 3–101Google Scholar; Kowner, R., ed., Rethinking the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905: centennial perspectives (Folkestone, 2007), pp. 13–62Google Scholar.

54 Shishkin to Ivashchenkov, 29 (17) Sept. 1895, RGIA, f. 560 o. 28 d. 617 ll. 1–2.

55 See reports on annual general meetings of the British concession in the North China Herald newspaper.

56 McDonald, D., United government and foreign policy in Russia, 1900–1914 (Boston, MA, 1992), pp. 11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Pokotilov, D. D., Kitaiskie porty imeiushchie znachenie dlia Russkoi torgovli na Dal'nem Vostoke (Chinese ports with significance for Russian trade in the Far East) (St Petersburg, 1895)Google Scholar, pp. iv, 139.

58 Ibid., pp. 138–40.

59 Ibid., p. 140.

60 Numerous important Russian thinkers took up similar themes in the nineteenth century. See Lim, China and Japan; and van der Oye, D. Schimmelpenninck, Toward the rising sun: Russian ideologies of empire and the path to war with Japan (DeKalb, IL, 2001)Google Scholar.

61 Pokotilov, Kitaiskie porty, p. 139.

62 Reproduced in Fadeev, V. A., ed., Fridrikh List: natsional'naia sistema politicheskoi ekonomii (Friedrich List: the national system of political economy) (Moscow, 2005), pp. 259–307Google Scholar.

63 Quoted in Harcave, S., Count Sergei Witte and the twilight of imperial Russia: a biography (Armonk, NY, 2004), p. 50Google Scholar.

64 Quoted in Wcislo, Tales of imperial Russia, p. 162.

65 Witte to Shishkin, undated, Nov. 1895, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 3.

66 Pokotilov, Kitaiskie porty, p. 137.

67 Witte to Shishkin, undated (Nov. 1895), RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 3.

68 Note prepared by Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the State Duma, undated, Oct. 1909, RGIA, f. 1278, o. 2, d. 2925, ll. 69–71.

69 Rappaport, E., ‘Packaging China: foreign articles and dangerous tastes in the mid-Victorian tea party’, in Trentmann, F., ed., The making of the consumer: knowledge, power and identity in the modern world (London, 2006), pp. 135–7Google Scholar.

70 Witte to Shishkin, undated, Nov. 1895, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 3.

71 Marks, S. G., Road to power: the Trans-Siberian Railroad and the colonization of Asian Russia, 1850–1917 (London, 1991), p. 224Google Scholar.

72 Quoted in Seton-Watson, H., The Russian empire, 1801–1917 (Oxford, 1967), p. 582Google Scholar.

73 Witte to Shishkin, undated, Nov. 1895, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 3. Approval date noted in the margin.

74 Kassini to Lobanov, 20 (8) Dec. 1895, AVPRI, f. 143, o. 491, d. 390, l. 10.

75 Svod mezhdunarodnikh postanovlenii, opredeliaiushchikh vzaimnaia otnosheniia mezhdu Rossiei i Kitaem, 1689–1897 (Collection of international treaties concerning relations between Russia and China) (St Petersburg, 1900), pp. 77–9.

76 The Chinese literature discussed in Eiermann, ‘Russian concession in Wuhan’, consists of a handful of relatively short works, most only a few pages long. According to Eiermann, they describe some local resistance, probably the same cases recorded in the Russian documents.

77 Carles to Beauclerk, 2 Jan. 1896, The National Archives, FO228/1226, no. 2.

78 Foreign businesses often leased land close to but outside British concessions from Qing authorities.

79 Pokotilov to Romanov, 18 (6) Jan. 1896, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, ll. 14–15.

80 Dean, ‘Sino-British diplomacy’, p. 88.

81 Vakhovich to Pavlov, 1 Sept. (20 Aug.) 1897, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 52.

82 Kassini to Lobanov, 20 (8) Dec. 1895, AVPRI, f. 143, o. 491, d. 390, l. 10. On the French concession, see D. Rihal, ‘La concession française de Hankou (1896–1943): de la condamnation à l'appropriation d'un héritage’ (Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot, 2007).

83 Pokotilov to Romanov, 18 (6) Jan. 1896, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 17; Kassini to Lobanov, 31 (19) Dec. 1895, AVPRI, f. 143, o. 491, d. 390, l. 15.

84 Kassini to Lobanov, 18 (6) July 1896, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 31.

85 Pokotilov to Romanov, 18 (6) Jan. 1896, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 15.

86 Witte to Lamsdorf, 19 (7) June 1898, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 74.

87 Pavlov to Murav'ev, 25 (13) Aug. 1898, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, l. 76.

88 Vakhovich to Pavlov, 22 (10) July 1897, RGIA, f. 560, o. 28, d. 617, ll. 55–6.

89 Spravka o russkikh kontsessiiakh (Information on Russian concessions), undated, 1912, AVPRI, f. 143, o. 491, d. 390, l. 206.

90 Thompstone, ‘Russia's tea traders’, p. 134.

91 A. Crawford, ‘Imperial Russia and the Chinese treaty ports, 1890s–1917’ (Ph.D. thesis, Bristol, 2013), passim.

92 Stoler and McGranahan, ‘Introduction’, p. 14.

93 Bickers, R., Britain in China: community, culture and colonialism, 1900–1949 (Manchester, 1999), p. 141Google Scholar. On bunds, see Taylor, J. E., ‘The bund: littoral space of empire in the treaty ports of East Asia’, Social History, 27 (2002), pp. 125–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Nadarov, Materialy k izucheniiu Khan'kou, p. 77.

95 Gallagher and Robinson, ‘Imperialism of free trade’, p. 5.

96 Howe, ‘Free trade’, pp. 26–7.

97 Darwin, Empire project, p. 81.

98 Rappaport, ‘Packaging China’.

99 St John, B., The China Times guide to Tientsin and neighbourhood (Tientsin, 1908), p. 5Google Scholar.

100 ‘Russkii klub v Khan'kou', HIA, Bel'chenko papers, box 24, folder 13.

101 Pavlenkov, Pamiati Aleksandra Vakhovicha, p. 10.

102 Minutes of Russian municipal council in Hankou, 21 (8) Mar. 1916, HIA, Bel'chenko papers, box 23, folder 5.

103 Beissinger, M., ‘How nationalisms spread: Eastern Europe adrift the tides and cycles of nationalist contention’, Social Research, 63 (1996), pp. 97–146Google Scholar, at p. 136.

104 For a different perspective on this point, see Marinelli, M., ‘Self-portrait in a convex mirror: colonial Italy reflects on Tianjin’, Transtext(e)s Transcultures, 3 (2007), pp. 119–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Goswami, M., ‘Rethinking the modular nation form: towards a sociohistorical conception of nationalism’, Comparative Studies in Social History, 44 (2002), pp. 770–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.