ENG-1965 — Page 307

HISTORY

249

but in the second half of the eighteenth century the British gradually secured a dominant share of the trade mainly as a result of growing control in India, and the lead in Sino-western relations therefore naturally fell to Britain.

The trade was lucrative and yet there were grievances. Residence at Canton was confined to the trading season and hedged with personal restrictions which confined the traders to the factory area, denied them access to the city and placed them in the hands of the Co-hong in their dealings with officials for the fixing of prices and the levying of port dues. The westerners were regarded as bar- barian, yet there was mutual trust which enabled written commercial contracts to be dispensed with.

The British made unavailing efforts to improve conditions at Canton by diplomatic means after appeals to the provincial officials there had failed. In 1793 Lord Macartney, fresh from his successful mission to Russia, was sent to Peking as ambassador, ostensibly to congratulate the Emperor, but chiefly to secure commercial concessions at Canton or else to acquire an island where the British could reside under their own law and government. He was hospitably received in Peking and created a favourable impression, but all his requests were refused. In 1816 a second embassy under Lord Amherst failed even more completely, Amherst being ordered to leave Peking without even seeing the Emperor.

The East India Company held a monopoly of British trade with China, but in the late eighteenth century the company began to concentrate on the valuable tea trade. At the same time licensed private traders engaged in what was termed the 'country trade' between India and China. By acting as representatives of foreign states these private traders overcame the reluctance of the company to allow them to reside in Canton and Macau. Thus an enlarged British community developed, strongly favouring the new free trade ideas then being discussed in England and clamouring for the abolition of the East India Company's now nominal monopoly. Abolition was, in fact, effected by Parliamentary action in 1833.

To replace the company's control, Lord Napier was sent out in 1834 as Chief Superintendent of Trade, with strict instructions to pursue a conciliatory policy towards the Chinese. But his position was weak, because he had no power to negotiate and no means of