Discussion Questions 1. Why did Lin Tse-Hsu write this letter to Queen Victoria? 2. Why is he worried about the sale of opium in China? 3. Why were the British selling Opium to China? 4. What connection does he think Queen Victoria has to the opium trade? Do you think he is right? Who controlled the Opium Trade? 5. What does this document tell us about the relations between China and the West in the nineteenth century? 6. What were the outcomes of the two Opium Wars? 7. Was China and open or closed society in the early 1800s? By whose choice were they open or closed? 8. How does this document relate to other things we have been learning in class? 9. Read the additional translation of this document and compare it to this one. How much of the conflict was caused by cultural ignorance and confusion, misunderstandings? Or was it a case of aggressive European Capitalism conflicting with a Chinese superiority complex?
(an alternate translation of the primary document) Commissioner Lin Zixu The Commissioner's Office, Anti-opium Commission, 1, High Street, Guangdzou, Guangdong. Ms Victoria Wettin, Ruler of British Isles and British Colonies in Africa, America, Asia & Australia, Buckingham Palace, London, England. 1839 Madam, Re: British Opium Enterprises in China Two centuries have elapsed since permission to trade in our nation has been granted to you and formerly your predecessors. You will observe with more than satisfaction the consequent financial remuneration to much of which the wealth and ascendancy of your nation is owed. It is therefore with the deepest deploration for us to note that our clemency has been repaid with viciousness. It has been brought to our attention that certain traders, predominantly of British nationality, have for some time been involved in the smuggling of opium into our nation. Recently the situation has escalated to alarming dimensions necessitating the establishment of a special commission to investigate into and deal with the matter. As head of the commission, I have been directed to inform you that such on-goings are highly objectionable morally and legally and may eventually lead to the forfeit of your trading rights. The wellknown detrimental effects of opium addiction to the individual, his family and society need no emphasis; this is obvious from your nation's strict prohibition of opium consumption. The administration of our nation concur with yours that no responsible government would not take great pains to ensure the health, whether physical, psychological or social, of its citizens. I would go further to voice that no moral government will take measures to wreck the health of any society, belonging to its nation or otherwise. Promoters of opium consumption, mindful merely of monetary gain, are callously oblivious of their victims' well-being; they are considered highly immoral in our culture, a view we expect shared by your nation. We note with relief the high moral standards and religious fervour in your nation and trust that, as ruler of such an esteemed nation, you will be bound by conscience and honour to assume immediate procedures to exterminate such iniquitous practices by such reprobate individuals. Your
government will no doubt rule that the opium farmer is no less abhorrable than the opium trader. We have received reports that the bulk of opium plantations, exclusively of British proprietorship, is concentrated in regions of India which is under the direct control of your nation. I would ardently move that you charge the immediate closure of these tillage and related factories of evil, to be replaced perpetually by farms of vegetations of nutrition and establishments to manufacture utilities of necessities and to enforce legislature to prevent and punish re-emergence of such pernicious structures. From the legal standpoint, I wish to reiterate that as from today consumption, as well as smuggling and trafficking in opium, are felonies in our nation punishable with death penalty. An opium dealer is none other than a murderer, but on a much greater scale, as it is numerous hyman lives that he takes away while the ordinary murderer kills only one or a few. Hence our administration finds no other alternative than to proclaim and enforce these rightfully harsh legislations. It is internationally acclaimed code of conduct for an individual, regardless of his nationality to abide by the laws of the locality he is situated in. We sincerely hope that you will remind your subjects of this principle. It has been put forward that punishment be restricted to the (Chinese) vendor who it was argued is the only one directly responsible for such murderous crimes. Such absurdity - chastising one criminal and letting free his accomplice with equal share of responsibility - is unheard of. Moreover, obviously this is contradictory to the principle of equalities of all human beings which every department of justice should uphold. Suffice for me to state that these regulations shall tolerate no compromise. I wish now to direct your attention to the trade situation of your nation. You will not argue that the balance is one of unilateral profit in favour of you. The unilaterality is two-fold and lies in the derived revenue as well as the nature of exchanged goods. Your Financial Secretary's well-kept accounts will testify to the first issue, on which I have no intention to dwell on. As for merchandise brought into China by traders from your nation, permit me to succinctly point out that they are dispensable items of no practical (or even ruinous, if we include, as we should, opium into our present discourse), functions. On the other hand, not only do their purchases from China never effect any obnoxiousness to human beings, but they are all articles benefial or essential to daily existence. Such a negative balance might have already prompted any other nation to order a cessation of trade and closing of its frontiers. Justice is ministered with leniency in our nation. We have considered the petition of Elliott, Consular Officer of your nation to grant a period of grace and in view of the sincerity for penitence displayed by British traders in surrendering twenty thousand chests of opium, we are delighted to extend a grace period of one year and six months to cargo ships setting sail from England and India respectively, on condition that their contraband goods be surrendered upon disembarkation at a Chinese Port. Looking forward to receiving your immediate reply regarding details of measures to be taken by you to interrupt further smuggling of opium into our nation, Yours Faithfully, LIN Zixu (signed)
Macartney and the Emperor Many Europeans had contact with China over the centuries. When Marco Polo traveled to China in the thirteenth century, he found European artisans already at the court of the Great Khan. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, priests such as the Italian Matteo Ricci journeyed to China, learned Chinese, and tried to make their religion more acceptable to the Chinese. These contacts were made usually by individual entrepreneurs or solitary missionaries. Although some Western science, art, and architecture was welcomed by the Qing court, attempts to convert Chinese to Christianity were by and large unsuccessful. More importantly, the Chinese state did not lend its support to creating a significant number of specialists in Western thinking. Direct oceanic trade between China and Europe began during the sixteenth century. At first it was dominated by the Portuguese and the Spanish, who brought silver from the Americas to exchange for Chinese silks. Later they were joined by the British and the Dutch. Initially trading took place at several ports along the Chinese coast, but gradually the state limited Western trade to the southern port of Canton (Guangzhou). Here there were wealthy Chinese merchants who had been given monopoly privileges by the emperor to trade with foreigners. Merchant guilds trading with foreigners were known as "hongs," a Westernization of hang, or street. The original merchant associations had been organized by streets. The merchants of the selected hongs were also among the only Chinese merchants with enough money to buy large amounts of goods produced inland and have them ready for the foreign traders when they came once a year to make their purchases. The Chinese court also favored trading at one port because it could more easily collect taxes on the goods traded if all trade was carried on in one place under the supervision of an official appointed by the emperor. Such a system would make it easier to control the activities of the foreigners as well. So in the 1750s trade was restricted to Canton (Guangzhou), and foreigners coming to China in their sail-powered ships were allowed to reside only on the island of Macao as they awaited favorable winds to return home. For many years this system was acceptable to both the Chinese and the Europeans. As the demand for tea increased, however, and the Industrial Revolution led them to seek more markets for their manufactured goods, the British began to try to expand their trade opportunities in China and establish Western-style diplomatic relations with the Chinese. This brought them immediately into conflict with the Chinese government, which was willing to allow trade without diplomatic relations, but would only allow diplomatic relations within the traditional tribute system that had evolved out of centuries of Chinese cultural leadership in Asia. In exchange for trading privileges in the capital and recognition of their ruler, neighboring states would send so-called tribute missions to China. These envoys brought gifts for the emperor and performed a series of bows called the "kow-tow" (koutou). Aside from a handful of foreigners who lived permanently in Peking (Beijing) and served the emperor, foreigners only visited the capital on such tribute missions. Therefore, when British citizens came to Peking in the late eighteenth century, their purpose was misunderstood. When they refused to follow the centuries-old system of tribute relations and began demanding both expanded trade and the establishment of embassies in the capital, they were immediately resisted and seen as challenging the Chinese way of life.
One of the most famous British attempts to expand trade with China demonstrates the miscommunication between the two nations. Lord Macartney (George Macartney, 1737-1806) led a mission in 1793 to the court of the Qianlong emperor (1711-1799; r. 1736-1796) of China. This emperor reigned over perhaps the most luxurious court in all Chinese history. He had inherited a full treasury, and his nation seemed strong and wealthy enough to reach its greatest size ever and also to attain a splendor that outdazzled even the best Europe could then offer. King George III (1738-1820) of England sent Macartney to convince the Chinese emperor to open northern port cities to British traders and to allow British ships to be repaired on Chinese territory. Macartney arrived in North China in a warship with a retinue of 95, an artillery of 50 redcoats, and 600 packages of magnificent presents that required 90 wagons, 40 barrows, 200 horses, and 3,000 porters to carry them to Peking. Yet the best gifts of the kind of England had to offer elaborate clocks, globes, porcelain seemed insignificant beside the splendors of the Asian court. Taken on a yacht trip around the palace, Macartney stopped to visit 50 pavilions, each "furnished in the richest manner... that our presents must shrink from the comparison and hide their diminished heads," he later wrote.** Immediately the Chinese labeled his mission as "tribute," and the emperor refused to listen to British demands. He also ordered Macartney to perform the kow-tow and dashed off the following reply to the British king. **From Frederick Wakeman, Jr., The Fall of Imperial China (Free Press, 1977), 101. Acknowledgments: The consultants for this unit were Drs. Madeleine Zelin and Sue Gronewold, specialists in modern Chinese history.