¹ Hall, D. G. E., Michael Symes, Journal of his Second Embassy to the Court of Ava in 1802 (London, 1955).Google Scholar

² Cox reported in 1798 that Burmese exports by sea were worth 700, 000 deals annually, and imports 1. 2 million ticals. Most of this trade was with British territories. Burma was the only source of wood for the shipbuilding industry of Bengal. In subsequent years, the trade probably declined, because of the attacks of French privateers on British shipping, internal disorder in Burma — the result of excessive conscription for the wars against Siam and of drought and famine — and competition from Burmese boatmen trading with Bengal.

³ Bengal Political Consultations (BPC), no. 39, 6 Feb. 1795.

⁴ Symes, Michael, An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava (Westmead, 1969), p. 492.Google Scholar

⁵ BPC, no. 16, 27 June 1796. Shore had listed the dangers attendant on a French presence in Burma in his minute on Symes's mission (BPC, no. 36, 4 Jan. 17%). The French might prevail on the Burmese to cut off the teak supply of the British, without which the shipbuilding industry of Bengal could not survive. They might use the advanced shipbuilding facilities at Rangoon — which were capable of turning out ships of up to 900 tons burthen — to build warships. They might cultivate Burmese products for sale n i Europe and thus make inroads into what had hitherto been a British preserve. In fact, however, the Burmese government made no attempt to seek so close a relationship with the French; also, such projects would have led to war with the British long before they could have been fully executed.

⁶ BPC. no. 16, 27 June 1796.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Furber, Holden, The Private Record of an Indian Governor-Generalship (Cambridge, 1933), p. 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ BPC, no. 16, 27 June 1796.

¹¹ BPC. no. 11, 12 Sept. 1796.

¹² BPC. no. 12, 12 Sept. 1796. Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ BPC. no. 11, 12 Sept. 1796.

¹⁶ BPC., no. 12, 12 Sept. 1796.

¹⁷ It was true that Lord Wellesley, who had become Governor-General when Cox returned, supported Cox; but this was an idiosyncratic reaction which could not have been rationally expected.

¹⁸ The writer has consulted psychiatric texts for more light on this subject, but these throw little light on Cox's case.

¹⁹ Cox undertook while in Burma to build a balloon for the King and failed, on his own account, only because of the unsuitability of the materials available at the capital. This showed — if his explanation for his failure was correct — that he was abreast of a very recent scientific technique, since the first balloons had been built by the Montgolfier brothers as recently as 1782/83.

²⁰ The scientific and commercial disquisitions are in Cox, Hiram, Journal of a Residence in the Burmhan Empire (1971), e. g., pp. 15, 19–21, 34–45Google Scholar , and in Franklin, William, Tracts, Political, Geographical and Commercial on the Dominions of Ava and the Northwestern Parts of Hindustaun (London, 1811)Google Scholar.

²¹ The following biographical information is available: born, 1759 or 1760; cadet in the East India Company's army, 1779; arrived in India, 1779; Lieutenant, 1780, resigned, 1784; re-admitted: 1790; became a batta captain, Jan. 1796. Source: , Hodson, List of the Officers of the Bengal Army (London, 1947)Google Scholar.

²² In 1795, Symes had demanded, and believed he had secured, Burmese acknowledgement of the Governor-General as a sovereign. On his return he suggested that the Governor-General uphold this claim by writing only to the King in future, leaving correspondence with others to junior officials. Shore accepted this suggestion.

²³ BPC. no. 20, 19 Sept. 1796.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ BPC, no. 106A, 21 Nov. 1796.

²⁶ , Cox, op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar

²⁷ BPC, no. 12, 12 Sept. 1796.

²⁸ No copy of this letter was sent to Calcutta at this time, so that the Calcutta Council would not discover that Cox had violated his instructions; a copy was provided only after Cox's mission had failed (BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. A). However, if Cox had been successful in securing ministerial status and so forth, he could not have hoped to conceal it; therefore, the manoeuvre lacked rational purpose -as did this entire attempt to gain unauthorized concessions.

²⁹ , Cox, op. cit., pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., p. 51.

³¹ Ibid., p. 67.

³² Ibid., p. 94.

³³ Ibid., p. 114, also p. 116.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 222.

³⁵ , Symes, op. cit., p. 310.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 284-85 and pp. 353-54.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 123. At this stage, the Burmese showed a marked reluctance to express disapproval of Cox's proposals even though they wanted him to abstain from presenting them. In fact, they expressed approval - “just and proper”, “justice and propriety” (Ibid., pp. 123 and 143) - but also tried to induce him to desist from pressing the proposals.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 143.

³⁹ Cox was also informed that the King had given orders that assistance should not be given to French privateers - Cox had apparently complained of this though he did not mention complaints in his journal - and that Frenchmen should be expelled from the country. However, he also wanted the Governor-General's help in securing the tooth of the Buddha in the possession of the King of Kandy in Ceylon. This of course would have been a very important matter for a Buddhist King; it would explain the concessions regarding the French and, apart from Cox's persistence, would have been a factor explaining the concessions regarding the interview with the Wungyis. However, the King's interest seemed to disappear afterwards; the tooth was mentioned by the Wungyi at his meeting with Cox, but there was no further mention of it. The concessions regarding the French were not carried out, for reasons that are not clear.

⁴⁰ , Cox, op. cit., p. 382, also p. 371.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 188.

⁴² The following incident, which occurred at this time, showed how badly Cox could misjudge situations. He related how an agent who had been sent by the Arakan government to Bengal, and been received well by the Calcutta government, sat “listening in silent astonishment” while he angrily made his complaints (Ibid., p. 209). Cox suggested that his surprise was due perhaps to his “comparing … the opposite conduct of the two governments” (Ibid.). The real reason, surely, was the sight of Cox berating the Hlutdaw's deputation, and preventing the order from being read out. Many examples of such myopia can be found in the journal.

⁴³ It was true that the memorials were so worded as to contain proposals rather than demands; but Cox's unwillingness to take no for an answer meant that they were in effect demands.

⁴⁴ BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. I (1).

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ BPC, no. 3. 2 Mar. 1798. App. I (2).

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. V and W; and BPC, no. 5, 2 Mar. 1798.

⁵¹ BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. 1 (3).

⁵² Sercey's visit to Mergui was probably the occasion when French warships gained the most from Burmese neutrality. If the period of naval warfare from 1793 to 1810 is considered as a whole, the French gained little from Burmese neutrality and visits to Burmese ports were infrequent. This judgement, however, is based on the British records alone and a final verdict must include an examination of French studies of the privateer campaign.

⁵³ BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. 1 (3).

⁵⁴ BPC, no. 3, 2 Mar. 1798, App. I (4).

⁵⁵ BPC, no. 5, 2 Mar. 1798.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ , Cox, op. cit., p. 286.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 227.

⁵⁹ Crawfurd, John, Journal of an Embassy to the Court of Ava, II (London, 1834), 186.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ , Cox, op. cit., p. 259.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 283.

⁶² Ibid., p. 289.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 299.

⁶⁴ This response, taken together with the general tone of his proceedings, showed that Cox had a kind of compulsive defiance which might have led him to react negatively even if the Burmese had accepted every one of his proposals.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 385.

⁶⁶ Vincentius Sangermano, an Italian Catholic missionary at Rangoon, and Rogers, an Englishman resident in Burma, were among those who provided Cox with the information necessary for writing these reports.

⁶⁷ BPC. no. 5, 2 Mar. 1798.

⁶⁸ SPC. no. 9, 2 Mar. 1798.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ BPC. no. 11, 2 Mar. 1798.

⁷² BPC., no. 12, 2 Mar. 1798. Cox's financial accounts were not approved in toto.

⁷³ The Myowun's moves at Rangoon showed that Cox was still acceptable to the Burmese as Resident. Also, the Hlutdaw transmitted a royal command, which reached Rangoon immediately before Cox's departure late in April, which referred to him specifically as Resident at Rangoon, and granted him certain privileges.

⁷⁴ However, in 1802, the King pointed out to the British at the audience which he gave Symes, that they should choose their envoys carefully. “Much mischief may arise from selecting an improper person to represent a state. ” See , Hall, op. cit., p. 190. “BPC, no. 50, 10 Sept. 1798, also no. 36; and BPC, 28 Nov. 1798, letter to Myowun of Arakan. ” There is material in the India Office records on Cox's work in Chittagong, but the writer has not been able to consult it. According to Professor Hall (Cox, op. cit., Introduction), Cox showed “quite exceptional energy and skill” in carrying out this task. While in Chittagong, Cox committed at least one unbalanced act; he wrote to the Myowun of Pegu stating that “the Burmese and the English nations were at war; assuring him of protection in the event of his being taken prisoner, and desiring a similar security for himself under a reverse of fortune” (Google Scholar, Hall, op. cit., p. 156Google Scholar). As has been seen, however, Cox was capable of doing good work, despite abnormal behaviour at the same time in another direction; Hall's assessment of his work in Chittagong, therefore, may well be correct.

Cox died of fever in the unhealthy Chittagong district in 1799; the town of Cox's Bazaar in this district was named after him.