影響華人的商法──以港英政府時期的合夥登記制度和破產法為說明對象

The Commercial Law Affecting Chinese: With Special Reference to Partnership Registration and Bankruptcy Law in Hong Kong

本文獻原載於1882年《德臣西報》（China Mail），題為「The Commercial Law Affecting Chinese：With Special Reference to Partnership Registration and Bankruptcy Law in Hong Kong」，作者為佚名英人。文章以1881年香港地產投機風潮為切入點，考察了近代香港以破產法和合夥登記制度為代表的英國商事法律與華人傳統商業秩序的複雜互動。
本文有三組核心對比：一是傳統中國商法與英國商法的體系性差異；二是香港引入英國商法前後本地商業「生態」的變化；三是港英政府與華人社會在制度應對上的立場分野。在作者看來，中國商法的主要特徵表現為：法源上，缺乏系統編纂的商法典，規範散見於刑律、詔令通行及尊重地方商業習慣的判決彙編；宗旨上，以保護生產者為核心，將商業活動限制在促進生活必需品流通的範圍內；制度上，通過官方授權的中間人與行會組織實現對貿易的雙重控制；合夥問題上，合夥形態複雜並實行家族連帶與無限責任；破產問題上，缺乏債務豁免機制，以嚴刑威懾債務履行且程式繁瑣。作者強調，中英商法的核心分歧在於：前者通過政府介入實現「利潤均衡」，後者以貿易自由追求資本流動最大化。而正是這種差異，在香港殖民地語境下引發劇烈衝突，英國破產法與合夥法的引入，打破了華人受政府、傳統行會和家族責任強約束的商業傳統，導致投機盛行與商業道德滑坡，成為19世紀下半葉香港華商危機的制度根源。而在官方與民間的互動方面，港英政府對英國商法的直接移植、對法律實施後弊端的反應遲緩，與華人社會特別是華商群體的多次請願與積極行動形成鮮明對照。
從譯者自身的理解來看，本文的價值至少包括三方面。一是提供豐富歷史細節和研究線索。作為較早系統分析香港近代商法移植問題的文獻，本文為相關法律史和經濟史研究提供了有益的資料庫──甚至是對文中內容（如作者提到聚焦於商法議題的1863、1867、1878年香港立法局會議）的考證本身，都將頗為有趣。二是促進比較法與法文化理論思考。本文實際置於法文化的脈絡中，充分展現了中英不同文化系統處理法律內在性的方式，及二者在相互融擴時如何為之。三是對實務的啟發。文中提出的三項商法改革建議（自願公示合夥人、強化破產管理、專項法律調研）及其適用優先順序的提議雖未被港府採納，但其強調「法律需適應本土商業習慣」的理念具有前瞻性。當代背景下的法律協調仍可從中汲取得失經驗，重視商業傳統與制度創新的平衡。
須指出的是，作者並非專業法律人或漢學家，且顯然是從歐洲人的觀點進入的，其對中國法律的理解以及對中英法律差異的描述，未必準確反映當時的法律實踐，部分術語（如government farms〔包稅商〕、insolvent〔法人破產〕與bankrupt〔自然人破產〕等）的表述亦存在誤用、混用。隨著研究的不斷精進，讀者對這篇1882年的觀察定有更為準確的認識。例如，就作者關於行會具體運作、定價方式等部分論述，羅威廉（William T. Rowe）、彭凱翔iv等學者的研究可提供重要修正和更準確的介紹，就作者對傳統中國破產法律程式的認識、對吏役群體的刻畫等，張世慧、白德瑞（Bradly Ward Reed）等學者的作品可供瞭解更全面的情形。然而，作者的部分思考仍提示著西方社會對中國法「濤聲依舊」的認識，使我們明晰破產、合夥等概念雖經學界長足的辯證討論仍有待闡釋。希望本文能為進一步的中西理論對話提供更多靈感。最後，譯稿忠實於原文，也努力提供供讀者理解的譯注，但鑒於譯者自身研究和翻譯水準尚淺，任何不妥之處，懇請指正。

This article was originally published in the 1882 China Mail under the title“The Commercial Law Affecting Chinese: With Special Reference to Partnership Registration and Bankruptcy Law in Hong Kong,”and was authored by British merchants. Using the 1881 Hong Kong property speculation boom as its starting point, the article thoroughly examines the complex interactions between British commercial law—represented by bankruptcy law and the partnership registration system—and traditional Chinese commercial practices in contemporary Hong Kong.
The article presents three core comparative frameworks: first, systemic differences between traditional Chinese commercial law and British commercial law; second, shifts in the“nature”of local commerce before and after Hong Kong’s adoption of British law; third, divergent institutional stances of the government versus the Chinese community.
According to the authors, Chinese commercial law exhibited the following key features. It lacked a systematically codified commercial code, with norms scattered across penal statutes, imperial decrees, and case compilations that deferred to local commercial customs. It centered on protecting producers and restricting commerce to the circulation of daily necessities. Dual control over trade was imposed through state-authorized intermediaries and guild organizations. Complex partnership structures emphasized familial joint liability and unlimited responsibility. Lacking a debt discharge mechanism, it relied on severe penalties to enforce obligations and featured cumbersome procedures. The authors emphasized that the fundamental divergence between Chinese and British commercial law lay in the former seeking“profit equilibrium”through state intervention, while the latter prioritized maximizing capital fluidity via free trade. It was precisely this difference that triggered intense conflict in colonial Hong Kong. The introduction of British bankruptcy and partnership law disrupted Chinese commercial traditions, which were tightly constrained by the state, traditional guilds, and familial duties; in so doing, it fueled speculation and eroded commercial morality, thus constituting the institutional root of crises among Chinese merchants at that time. Regarding state-society dynamics, the government’s direct transplantation of British law and sluggish response to its negative repercussions, contrasted sharply with the Chinese community’s—especially the Chinese merchant community’s—repeated petitions and proactive actions.
From the translator’s perspective, the article is valuable in at least three ways. First, it provides rich historical details and research leads. As an early systematic analysis of commercial law transplantation in modern Hong Kong, it offers a useful compendium of information for legal and economic history research; even simple textual verification of its content (e.g., references to Hong Kong Legislative Council meetings in 1863, 1867, and 1878 focused on commercial law issues) would be of significant interest. Second, it promotes theoretical reflections on comparative law and legal culture. The article is contextualized within different legal culture, and it fully demonstrates how Chinese and British cultural systems approached legal immanence, and navigated the integration of legal orders. Third, it offers practical insights. It put forward three proposals for commercial law reform (voluntary disclosure of partners, strengthening of bankruptcy management, and special legal research). Although these were rejected by the government, the core idea that“law adapts to local commercial customs”remains prescient. Present-day legal coordination efforts can still learn from its successes and failures, emphasizing the balance between commercial traditions and institutional innovation.
It should be noted that the authors were neither legal professionals nor China specialists, and they clearly wrote from a European perspective. Their understanding of Chinese law and descriptions of Sino-British legal differences may not accurately reflect legal practice at that time. Terms such as government farms, insolvency and bankruptcy were also misused or conflated. Given advances in research since the original publication of this article, readers enjoy a more precise understanding of these 1882 observations. For instance, regarding the authors’descriptions of guild operations and pricing mechanisms, studies by William T. Rowe and Peng Kaixiang彭凱翔offer important corrections and more accurate accounts; regarding the authors’understanding of traditional Chinese bankruptcy procedures and depictions of clerks as a group in local government, works by scholars such as Zhang Shihui張世慧and Bradly Ward Reed provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Nevertheless, some of the authors’reflections reveal the“persistent stereotypes”about Chinese law in Western society, reminding us that concepts like bankruptcy and partnership remain contested despite extensive scholarly debate. It is to be hoped that this article will inspire further Sino-Western theoretical dialogue. Finally, this translation adheres faithfully to the original text, while striving to provide annotations that will further readers’comprehension. However, given the translator’s limited research and translation expertise, correction is warmly welcomed.