Page 218 - The colours of each piece: production and consumption of Chinese enamelled porcelain, c.1728-c.1780

CHAPTER 6 A New Context of Porcelain Trade 1760-1770

woollen goods for those he was not the purchaser of. Security Merchants were

responsible for the completion of payment of duties and charges for export tea and

silk as well. It is worth noting that only Security Merchants were responsible for duties

and charges, although all Hong merchants were entitled to trade with Europeans. The

responsibility for both sides created insuperable difficulties on account of Security

Merchants.

Gradually, Hong merchants were less willing to take on the role of security

merchant. The supercargo of the EEIC complained,

The merchant…was obliged to make good the duties both out and home,

altho’he himself did not deal with you for a single farthing. The merchant

therefore…always expected and took it for granted that you were to deal

with him for the greatest share of your concern. As a result, there have

15
refused to be the EEIC Securities.

In 1754, four merchants refused to serve as Security Merchants for six EEIC ships,

16
due to potential losses in trade. Throughout the 1750s, there were about twenty

Hong merchants, however, the number of the Security Merchants was small; for

example, only five were appointed by the Hoppo as Security Merchants in the year

1759. The lack of Security Merchants resulted in a shortage of supply of goods to the

Companies. As an alternative, the East India Companies sought commodities from

those shopkeepers. During the mid-eighteenth century, the trade with Hong merchants

were confronting problems such as delay of payment and shortage of supply to the

East India Company. This situation created trading opportunities for porcelain dealers

who were not Hong merchants. In the late 1750s, the suppliers for the VOC porcelain

15 IOR/R/10/3, 5 July 1754.
16 Ibid.
202