[http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob35.html]
The Napier Affair (1834)
In 1834 Lord Napier was appointed Chief Superintendent of Trade at
Canton. Hitherto, the trade of
English ships had been supervised by appointees of the English East India
Company, the private trading
concern that had enjoyed a monopoly of the far eastern trade for over a century.
With the withdrawal of
this monopoly and the opening of the trade to any British trader, it became
necessary for the British
government to take a supervisory role; hence the appointment of Lord Napier. He
arrived at Macao in
July 1834.
Trade regulations as imposed by the Chinese government, were very restrictive
and trade was confined to
the port of Canton only, for specified months of the year. Moreover, it was
forbidden to foreigners to
communicate directly with Chinese officials; all contact was to be made with
officials of the local guild of
merchants, the Co-hong, who would then deal with Chinese officialdom on behalf
of all foreign
merchants and officials. These procedures had always been adhered to by the E.I.
Company.
With the arrival of Napier, however, a direct challenge was made to this one-
sided arrangement when
Napier, as instructed by his superiors, sought to communicate directly, by
letter, with the imperial
representative at Canton, Governor Lu. Napier's brief was "to protect and
foster British trade and
attempt to get it expanded to other Chinese ports." Disdaining to accommodate
Chinese protocol,which he
regarded as unwarranted assumption of superiority vis-à-vis foreign
officials, Napier accordingly delivered
his letter of introduction at the gate of the city only to have its receipt
refused. Governor Lu was
determined to apply the regulations for not to do so would surely have cost him
his life. Equally, Lord
Napier was resolved to contravene the regulations so as not to have the "honor
of the British nation"
impugned. A stalemate ensued that ended with a humiliating withdrawal of Lord
Napier but under
circumstances that misled and deluded the Chinese into thinking that they
could persist in treating
foreign countries as tributary states and foreigners themselves as 'barbarians'.
The following extracts from contemporary correspondence indicate the gulf that
existed between the two
states--the one ancient, traditional and untuned to the vast changes in the
world at large; the other,
modern, powerful, and a prime mover in establishing new patterns of global
trade .
ITEM A: Governor Lu to the Co-hong
merchants
On this occasion, the barbarian, Lord Napier, has come to Canton without having
at all
resided at Macao to wait for orders; nor has he requested or received a permit
from the
superintendent of customs, but has hastily come up to Canton: a great
infringement of the
established laws! The custom-house waiters and others who presumed to admit him
to
enter, are sent with a communication requiring their trial. . . . As to his
object in coming to
Canton, it is for commercial business. . . . The petty affairs of commerce are
to be
directed by the merchants themselves; the officers [i.e., government officials]
have nothing
to hear on the subject. . . . If any affair is to be newly commenced, it is
necessary to wait
till a respectful memorial [i.e., request] be made, clearly reporting it to the
great emperor,
and his mandate be received; the great ministers of the celestial empire [i.e.,
China] are not
permitted to have intercourse by letters with outside barbarians [i.e.,
foreigners]. If the
said barbarian throws in private letters, I, the governor, will not at all
receive or look at
them. With regard to the foreign factory [i.e., the warehouse complex outside
the city at
which foreigners resided and traded] . . .it is a place of temporary residence
for foreigners.
. . ; they are permitted only to eat, sleep, buy and sell in the factories; they
are not allowed
to go out to ramble about.
ITEM B: Governor Lu to the
emperor
The said barbarian [Lord Napier] would not receive the hong-merchants, but
afterwards repaired to the outside of the city to present a letter to me, your
majesty's
minister Lu. On the face of the envelope the forms and style of equality were
used ; and
there were absurdly written the characters, Ta Ying kwoh (i.e., Great English
nation). . .
Whether the said barbarian has or has not official rank, there are no means of
thoroughly
ascertaining. But though he be really an officer of the said nation, he yet
cannot write
letters on equality with the frontier officers of the celestial empire. As the
thing concerned
the national dignity, it was inexpedient in the least to allow a tendency to any
approach or
advance, by which lightness of esteem might be occasioned. Accordingly, orders
were
given to . . the colonel in command of the military forces of this department,
to tell him
[Napier]authoritatively, that, by the statutes and enactments of the celestial
empire, there
has never been intercourse by letters with outside barbarians . . .
Now it is suddenly desired to appoint an officer, a superintendent, which
is not in
accordance with old regulations. Besides, if the said nation has formed this
decision, it still
should have stated in a petition, the affairs which, and the way how, such
superintendent is
to manage, so that a memorial might be presented, requesting your majesty's
mandate and
pleasure as to what should be refused, in order that obedience might be paid to
it . . . But
the said babarian, Lord Napier, without ever having made any plain report,
suddenly came
to the barbarian factories outside the city to reside, and presumed to desire
intercourse to
and fro by official documents and letters with the officers of the Central
Flowery Land [i.e., China], and this
was, indeed, far out of the bounds of reason.
ITEM C: Lord Napier is
Insulted
Napier had communicated with his government on August 26, 1834 [that would take some two months to reach London] apprising the officials of the Foreign Office of the tortured nature of his fruitless attempts to meet with the Governor of Cant
on. The reaction of the Governor, who had ordered the stoppage of trade at the port, is conveyed in the two documents above, In addition, however, the Chinese authorities caused to be published to the people of Canton statements about Napier's visit that
were highly prejudicial to the success of the British mission. In an attempt to save the dignity of his mission and demonstrate the intransigence of the authorities at Canton, Napier also adopted that tactic and had a statement lithographed ( and circula
ted in the city criticising the authorities whose "perversity" was working to effect the ruin of "thousands of industrious Chinese who live by the European trade." Napier was mistaken if he had thought that this would change the minds of officials, as is
indicated in the following stinging reply:
A lawless foreign slave, Napier, has issued a notice. We know not how such a dog barbarian of an outside nation as you, can have the audacious presumption to call yourself Superintendent (of Trade).
Being an outside savage Superintendent, and a person in an official situation, you should have some little knowledge of propriety and law.
You have passed over ten thousand miles in order to seek a livelihood; you have come to our Celestial Empire to trade and control affairs;--how can you not obey well the regulations of the Empire? You audaciously presume to break through the barrie
r passes [i.e., entrance to the city of Canton; forbidden to foreigners] . . . According to the laws of the nation , the Royal Warrant should be respectfully requested to behead you; and openly expose your head to the multitude, as a terror to perverse
dispositions
ITEM D: Lord Napier to Lord Palmerston
at the
Foreign
Office, London
My present position is . .. a delicate one, because the trade is put in
jeopardy, on
account of the difference existing between the (governor) and myself. I am
ordered by his
majesty [the king of England] to "go to Canton, and there report myself by
letter to the
(governor)." I use my best endeavors to do so; but the (governor) is a
presumptuous
savage.
. . . Had I even degraded the king's commission [i.e., the orders given him by
his
government] so far as to petition through the hong-merchants for an interview,
it is quite
clear by the tenor of the edicts that it would have been refused. Were he to
send an armed
force, and order me to the boat, I could then retreat with honor, and he would
implicate
himself; but they are afraid to attempt such a measure. What then remains but
the
stoppage of the trade, or my retirement? [i.e., withdrawal]. If the trade is
stopped for any
length of time, the consequences to the merchants are most serious, as they are
also to the
unoffending Chinese. But the (governor) cares no more for commerce, or for the
comfort
and happiness of the people, as long as he receives his pay and plunder, than if
he did not
live among them. My situation is different; I cannot hazard millions of property
for any
length of time on the mere score of etiquette. If the trade shall be stopped,
which is
probable enough in the absence of the frigate [i.e., British naval protection],
it is possible I
may be obliged to retire to Macao [the Portuguese enclave at themouth of Canton
harbor]
to let it loose again. Then has the (governor) gained his point, and the
commission [i.e.,
Napier's mission to foster trade, etc.] is degraded. Now, my lord. I argue, that
whether the
commission retires by force of arms, or by the injustice practised on the
[foreign]
merchants, the (governor) has committed an outrage on the British crown, which
should
be equally chastised. . . . I can only once more implore your lordship to force
them to
acknowledge my authority and the king's commission, and if you can do that, you
will
have no difficulty in opening the ports at the same time.
In the event, Governor Lu stopped the trade entirely on Sep. 2 and
three weeks later Lord Napier, now in
ill-health, withdrew to Macao where he died the following month..
Rpresentations by the English
merchants to the government in London that a fleet be sent to settle the matter
[i.e., intimidate the
Chinese into acquiescence] were refused by the government, as was the
recommendation of Lord Napier
in the letter cited above (Item D) , to which he received the reply that it was
"not by force and violence
that his majesty intended to establish a commercial intercourse between his
subjects and China, but by
conciliatory measures." Accordingly, the trade was resumed under the existing
regulations, though Lu's
success in maintaining the "great principles of dignity" did not outlast the
decade . . .
[Refs.: S. Wells Williams, The Middle Kingdom , Vol II, pp. 470ff.; British Parliamentary Papers, 1840, XXXVI (223), p. 34]