^{page 204 note 1} Sung Yün (1753–1835).

^{page 204 note 2} Ch'ang Lin (D. 1811).

^{page 206 note 1} MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection of Macartney Documents on China, i, No. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 1} Published in Morse, H. B., Chronicles of the East India Company Trading to China (Oxford, 1926–1929), ii, 232–242Google Scholar. Dated 8th September, 1792.

^{page 207 note 2} MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection, i, No. 24. Colonel Charles Cathcart was sent to China as Ambassador in 1787 but died on the outward voyage. The instructions are dated 30th November, 1787, and are signed by Lord Sydney. The unsigned instructions are printed in Morse, , Chronicles, ii, 160–7Google Scholar, and an earlier draft signed by Henry Dundas, who actually wrote them, is printed in Bannister, Saxe, Journal of the First French Embassy to China, 1698–1700 (London, 1859), pp. 209–226Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 3} The three above-mentioned men were sent to China in the spring of 1792 to reform the management of the Canton factory and to co-operate with the Macartney Embassy. The letter in question outlines principles to be followed in the reform, and directs them to obtain as much information about the growth and manufacture of silk as possible and transmit it to India. The letter is in MSS. Cornell University, Macartney Documents, xii, 11th 04, 1792Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 4} Thetis, Indiaman of 804 tons, sailed for China on 5th May, 1792.

^{page 207 note 6} MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchird Collection, i, No. 26. This letter is dated 25th April, 1792, and is marked “Secret”. After pointing out that an Embassy is to be sent it directs the Secret and Superintending Committee to procure an audience with the Viceroy as soon as possible, to announce to him the coming of the Embassy, and to deliver to him for transmission to the Emperor a letter from the Chairman announcing the Embassy. It then goes on to indicate the aims of the mission, cautions the supercargoes against antagonizing the Chinese or complaining against abuses in such a way as to endanger the success of the Embassy, and directs them to co-operate in every way with the Ambassador and to supply him with information about the trade of all nations at Canton. The following extracts from the letter are worth quoting:—

“But although the avowed and ostensible purpose of the Embassy is complement and conciliation, we hope that means may be found to procure substantial privileges and advantages for the Company….

“We are very much inclined to think that however desirous we may be to remove every complaint, yet remonstrance against trifling abuses may not be worthy our notice on the present occasion; and that attempts to correct, them may prove the means of frustrating the endeavours of the Ambassador to procure more solid and substantial advantages….

“It will be a most important point to secure a favorable and gracious reception of the Embassy, on the part of the Emperor; in order to impress the minds of the Natives and of the Mandarins particularly with an opinion that our representations will be well received at Court. This Idea will cheek their disposition to impose, and probably produce more permanent advantages than any positive orders on the part of the Emperor the execution of which might be evaded.

“If the result of the Embassy shall tend to conciliate the Chinese Government, the Mandarins, and the Natives in general towards the Company, and we can procure a proper Establishment to the Northward, we shall be near to the Districts where the Tea is produced, and, as we apprehend, not far from those parts where our Manufactures and particularly Woollens, are consumed….

“In the latter Case a competition between two Ports would gradually remove those abuses and impositions on our Trade which we conceive exist, in consequence of the establishment of the Co Hong at Canton, and thereby relieve the Ambassador from the task of making any direct remonstrance against the Co Hong….

“If the Ambassador shall succeed in obtaining an Establishment for the Company to the Northward, you must select two of our Servants well acquainted with the Company's Trade, and with the Customs and Manners of the Chinese, together with two or three of the Younger Servants, who must proceed to the Port or Place, under such orders and regulations as you may think necessary on the occasion, and which must of course depend altogether upon local considerations and circumstances.”

The letter is signed by Francis Baring and J. Smith Burges. The first draft was made by Lord Macartney on 17th March, 1792 (MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xci, 167–8Google Scholar), but the final draft is much longer.

^{page 208 note 1} See Document No. 2, which will appear in a later number of this Journal.

^{page 209 note 2} The Reports referred to are three in number and were made by a Select Committee of the Court of Directors in September, 1791, and January, 1792, to the Lords of Trade. The first Report deals with India, the second with China, and the third with Japan and Persia. They are to be found in Parliamentary Papers, Accounts and Papers, 1792–3, xxxviii, No. 774b, 1–3. The Book Packet referred to consisted of twenty-one volumes of material, mainly extracts from the records of the Company's Canton factory. This whole collection is at present in the Wason Collection on China at Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York. Outside of the India Office, it is probably the best available collection for the study of early Anglo-Chinese relations. The Reports form volumes 17–19 of the Collection as now arranged.

^{page 210 note 1} Reference is here made to the effect of the Commutation Act of 1784 (24 Geo. Ill, Cap. 38) which reduced the duties on tea imported into England from an average of 119 per cent to a uniform 12} per cent. The Act put a stop to the smuggling of tea into England, ruined the Company's Continental rivals who were thriving on the smuggling trade, and greatly increased the Company's imports and exports at Canton. The Company's exports of tea from Canton increased from T. 1,480,014 in 1784–5, to T. 4,103,828, in 1790–1, and the value of woollens sold in China increased from T. 614,955 in 1784–5 to T. 1,192,263 in 1790–1 (Pritchard, Earl H., Crucial Years of Early Anglo-Chinese Relations, 1750–1800 [Pullman, Wash., 1936], pp. 146–150, 191–4, 391, 395Google Scholar).

^{page 211 note 1} The reference is to the Imperial decree of 1780 which settled the debts of certain bankrupt Hong merchants to private British traders and re-established the Co-hong. The Company always, insisted that this action led to an increase in prices at Canton, but a study of the Canton prices during the period leads one to think the Company over-emphasized the matter (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 165–6, 210–11); see note 1, next page.

^{page 211 note 2} The possible death of the Ch'ien Lung Emperor and the accession of a new Emperor is here anticipated.

^{page 211 note 3} Lord Macartney ultimately requested the opening of Chusan, Ningpo, and Tientsin; permission to establish a warehouse at Peking, and permission to occupy for trading purposes small, detached, and unfortified islands in the neighbourhood of Chusan and Canton. All of the requests were refused (MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 259–261Google Scholar; Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 348–9).

^{page 212 note 1} A loosely organized association of Hong merchants (merchants licensed to trade with foreigners) which monopolized foreign trade. It was first established in 1720 but was almost immediately abolished. It was reestablished in 1760, abolished again in 1771, and re-established in its final form in 1780 (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 116, 131, 140, 200, 210).

^{page 213 note 1} Whampoa, Huang-pu, was the anchorage outside of Canton. Danes and French Islands were near the anchorage. As a result of an affray between. English and French seamen in 1754, in which an Englishman was killed, the French seamen were confined to French Island for purposes of exercise, and the English were confined to Danes Island (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 124–5; Morse, , Chronicles, v, 14–19Google Scholar)

^{page 214 note 1} The incident referred to was the Lady Hughes affair of 1784 which resulted in the execution of a British gunner who had accidentally killed two minor mandarins while firing a salute (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 226–230). The letter referred to, by Pére J. J. M. Amiot, dated Peking, 25th January, 1787, is in Mèmoires concernant …des chinois, xiv, 628–530.

^{page 215 note 1} An Indiaman of 1,248 tons, which accompanied the Embassy and carried presents.

^{page 215 note 2} The security merchant system developed between 1728 and 1740 (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 116–17).

^{page 216 note 1} The members of the Co-hong were jointly responsible for the debts of individual members of the association, and at the end of each trading season the silver remaining in the Company's Canton treasury was left in the care of the Co-hong.

^{page 216 note 2} In reality the Company's trade was barter, even though prices were regularly fixed for all articles bought and sold, because the quantity and price of woollens taken by the Hong merchants was proportional to the quantity and price of tea purchased by the Company.

^{page 217 note 1} The export of chinaware from China by the Company was stopped in 1791 (MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Documents, xii, Court to Select Committee, 4th 08, 1791Google Scholar).

^{page 217 note 2} The Company gave to Lord Macartney a memoir on the cultivation of economic plants in India which had been prepared by Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, in 1788. It gave special prominence to tea, and pointed out the areas in India which were suitable to its cultivation (MSS. Cornell, Macartney Correspondence, No. 177). Consider also Docu. ment No. 3, which will appear in a later number of this Journal.

^{page 218 note 1} MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection, i, No. 8. The paper contains a list of thirteen questions on the food of the silk worm, twenty-six questions on the worm itself, and twenty-three questions on the manufacture of silk, the answers to which Lord Macartney was to attempt to get in China. He was also asked to find out how the Chinese dyed their nankeens or cotton cloth.

^{page 219 note 1} The reference is to border difficulties between Russia and China which were ended by a convention in 1792 (MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, Nos. 17, 359Google Scholar).

^{page 219 note 2} The value of raw cotton imported from India to China increased from T. 311,762 in 1784–5, to T. 2,232,518 in 1790–1 (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 393, 401–2).

^{page 220 note 1} For a general list of duties on East India and China goods see Collection of Statutes Concerning… the East India Company (London, 1786)Google Scholar, list of duties at the beginning of the volume. It appears to be found only in the India Office under Charters; see List of General Records, p. 76.

^{page 221 note 1} A detailed list of the presents and specimens recently purchased is found in MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xci, 543–583Google Scholar, and a list of those used from the Cathcart Embassy is given on pp. 584–590 of the same document. An abbreviated list for both Embassies is given in Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 247, 306.

^{page 222 note 1} The present consisted of furs and broadcloth.

^{page 222 note 2} See MSS. Cornell, Macartney Correspondence, x, No. 436a. To this should be added £1,450 paid for the Jackall, tender to the Lion, Man-of-War which carried the Ambassador, and £960 paid to Sir George Staunton for expenses on a trip to Italy to get interpreters, as well as £750 expended by Lord Macartney at Portsmouth before embarking (see infra, Document No. 8, which will appear in a later number of this Journal).

^{page 222 note 3} Documents Nos. 6 and 7 in the Packet are in MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection, i, Nos. 6, 7. The imprests on account of salary are mainly to Lord Macartney, and amount to £7,000.

^{page 222 note 4} 4 The articles taken along for distribution in the hope of developing new demands consisted of various varieties of woollens, linens, guns, swords, hardware, and Wedgwood pottery. Birmingham and Sheffield sent hardware and swords valued at £771.

^{page 223 note 1} See Mémoires concernant …des chinois. The article is by Pere P. Martial Cibot and is entitled, “Parallele des moeura & usages des chinois, avee les moeurs & usages decrits dans le livre d'Esther.”

^{page 223 note 2} See note at the end of this article.

^{page 223 note 3} Poplin and tabinet were types of cloth made from silk and wool, and having a corded appearance. In 1786–7 fourteen pieces of tabinet sold at a profit of T. 47, but in 1789–90, 140 pieces sold at a loss of T. 131 (Pritchard, op. cit., p. 162).

^{page 224 note 1} In 1789 the Company entered into an agreement with Cornish tin producers to export 800 tons of tin annually at £75 per ton provided a sale for it could be found in China (Pritchard, op. cit., p. 158).

^{page 226 note 1} The Committee actually set aside T. 300,000 for the use of the Embassy (MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xciii, 17Google Scholar).

^{page 226 note 2} Lord Macartney kept a detailed journal which was first published in Barrow, John, Account of the Public Life and a Selection from the Unpublished Writings of the Earl of Macartney (London, 1807), vol. iiGoogle Scholar. A better edition of the journal is published in Robbins, Helen M., Our First Ambassador to China (London, 1908)Google Scholar.

^{page 227 note 1} MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection, i, Nos. 15, 16, 17. No. 16 is a special letter of instruction dated 5th September, 1792, directing Captain Mackintosh to obey the orders of the Ambassador, to refrain from private trade, and indicating that a special set of signals were to be used on the voyage. No. 17 is a printed copy of the routine instructions given by the Court of Directors to all commanders of Indiamen. No. 15 is a Covenant signed by Captain Mackintosh in which he binds himself to refrain from private trade at all places in China except Canton without the written permission of the Ambassador. He further promises not to receive bribes or unofficial presents from the Chinese and agrees to be especially careful not to injure or offend the Chinese in any way, and at all times to conform to the orders of the Ambassador. Failure to fulfil the Covenant subjects him to civil suit for amounts named in the Covenant.

^{page 228 note 1} As a partial means of reimbursement to commanders and officers of Indiamen the Company allowed them to carry on a limited amount of private trade. Documents Nos. 18 and 19 in the Pritchard Collection at the State College of Washington contain an account of the private trade allowed to the officers and commander of the Hindostan. This may be taken as representative of the amount allowed on other 1,200 ton ships of the period. The regular prívate trade manifest is as follows: Commander, £5,980; Chief Mate, £500; Second Mate, £220; Third Mate, £90; Fourth Mate, £82; Purser, £800; Surgeon, £260 Surgeon's Mate, £170; Midshipman, £20; Carpenter's First Mate, £10. In addition, Captain Mackintosh was allowed £1,500 more on this particular voyage. The total private trade thus amounted to £9,632. Furs and lead are the chief items in the manifests, but numerous other items, such as ginseng, drugs, glass, cloth cuttings, perfume, sadlery, cutlery, clocks, Prussian blue, carpets, hats, cards, beer, and music are included.

^{page 228 note 2} The Resolution made “At a Court of Directors held on Wednesday the 5th September 1792,” runs as follows: “Resolved, That the Right Honble Lord Viscount Macartney, be authorized to suspend or dismiss the Commander or any Officer of the Hindostan, who shall be guilty of a breach of Covenants, or disobedience of Orders, from the Secret Committee, or from His Excellency during the continuance of the Embassy to China” (MSS. State College of Washington, Pritchard Collection, i, No. 22).

^{page 229 note 1} For this letter see MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xci, 63–70Google Scholar.