traders. Before very long the situation became worse than ever. A set of new regulations was introduced which placed fresh obstacles in the way of trade, and simultaneously with their promulgation there set in a policy of a deliberately provocative character. A stoppage of trade was precipitated in May, 1831, by a series of acts of exceptional insolence. Early in the morning of the 12th of the month the Foo-yuen, one of the leading officials, with a guard of soldiers forced an entrance into the Company's factory, and entering the public hall directed that the portraits with which it was adorned should be uncovered. When that of George IV. was pointed out to him he ostentatiously ordered the back of his chair to be turned to it, and seated himself in a manner plainly indicating contempt. A more serious outrage perpetrated by this official was the issuing of orders for the removal of an embankment which had been made on the river side of the factory in extension of the Company's premises. This embankment had been constructed from rubbish removed from the factory after a great fire in 1822 which consumed most of the buildings. The work had been carried out with the sanction of the Chinese authorities and though it added a considerable area to the factory enclosure it did so without injury to other interests. The arrogant official, without entering into any explanation, ordered the removal of the rubbish composing the embankment. The excavated material was loaded into boats and conveyed by them to a point about fifty yards below the factory where it was thrown into the river, as if to show that the desire was not to remove a public obstruction but to offer a public insult to the Company's representatives. These measures created much indignation amongst the British community, and they were regarded even by the Chinese mercantile community as outrageous and improper in the highest degree.
In view of the increasingly hostile disposition shown by the Chinese officials to British traders, and the growing difficulties of carrying on trade it was decided to make a formal representation to the home authorities in order to secure an amelioration of the conditions by Government action. The opportunity of obtaining an effective ventilation of grievances was afforded in 1832 by the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons to consider the question of the future of China trade. A petition embodying the opinions of the British community was drawn up and in due course presented. It displayed a striking picture of the humiliations to which Europeans at that period were subjected. The document referred to "the many studied indignities heaped upon foreigners by the acts of this Government and by contumelious edicts placarded on the walls of their very houses, representing them as addicted to the most revolting crimes, with no other object than to stamp them in the eyes of the people as a barbarous, ignorant and depraved race, every way inferior to themselves."
"No privation or discomfort," the petition went on to say, "is too minute to escape notice in the pursuit of this ever present purpose. Free air and exercise are curtailed by precluding access to the country or beyond the confined streets in the immediate vicinity of their habitations. Even the sacred ties of domestic life are disregarded in the separation of husband and wife, parent and child, rendered unavoidable by a capricious prohibition against foreign ladies residing in Canton, for which there appears to be no known law, and no other authority than the plea of usage." The petition also stated: "They (the Chinese) subject foreigners to treatment to which it would be difficult to find a parallel in any part of the world"; "they make no distinction between manslaughter and murder as applied to foreigners"; the Government "withholds from foreigners the protection of its laws, and its power is felt only in a system of unceasing oppression, pursued on the avowed principle of considering every other people as placed many degrees below its own in the scale of human beings"; "bribes are openly demanded by low and unprincipled men who possess an arbitrary power of levying the import duties on goods"; and "the local authorities at Canton are a venal and corrupt class of persons who impose severe burdens upon commerce."
(From Allom & Wright's "China.")
This tremendous indictment of the Chinese methods of dealing with British traders had no small influence in bringing about the change which occurred at this period in relation to the China trade. Hitherto the East India Company had enjoyed a practical monopoly of the commercial intercourse with the Far East. What private trade there was was carried on without official recognition and under serious disadvantages. In 1833, on the expiry of the Company's charter, the Government decided to throw the trade open to all, and to appoint official superintendents to act as intermediaries between the Chinese officials and the traders. The highly responsible post of Chief British Superintendent was entrusted to Lord Napier, and as his assistants Mr. (afterwards Sir) J. F. Davis, and Sir G. B. Robinson were sent out. Lord Palmerston, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, drew up the instructions for the three representatives. He was a distinguished public man, thoroughly versed in European diplomacy and statecraft, but he had a profound ignorance of the Oriental character, and he made the glaring mistake of assuming that the punctilio, indispensable in the case of a European power, was not necessary where an Oriental government was concerned. Lord Napier and his colleagues were sent out to fill what was practically a diplomatic position without any preliminary inquiry as to whether they would be received. The natural consequence was that their official character was completely ignored, and they were treated with a degree of disrespect which could not have been exceeded if they had appeared in the character of mere private personages. On their arrival at Canton the tide waiters officially reported that "three foreign devils" had landed without leave. Shortly afterwards the Governor issued an edict declaring that the presence of the British superintendents in Canton was an infringement of established laws, and that "the barbarian eye" (Lord Napier) ought to have awaited orders at Macao. Lord Napier, therefore, addressed a letter to the Governor explaining that he had come in an official capacity, and asking an interview. The missive was returned to the writer unopened, with a contemptuous message that it could not be received because it was not superscribed as a humble petition. In vain Lord Napier requested that his communication might be accepted. Not a single person could be found to risk official displeasure by delivering it. The next stage in the business was the issue (in August) of an edict demanding that Lord Napier should return to Macao, and threatening to stop trade in the event of his non-compliance with the order. The edict was ignored by the British representatives with the result that trade was stopped on September 2nd. To emphasise their displeasure the authorities put a Chinese guard on the British factory. Lord Napier's response to this was to call up two British frigates to protect the lives and properly of British subjects. These vessels, the Andromache and the Imogene, on passing through the Bogue were fired upon from the forts and returned the fire. In the engagement there were several casualties on both sides. The two ships forced their way up the river to Canton, where they landed a body of blue jackets and marines at the factory. The energy shown had a salutary effect upon the Chinese officials, who dropped their boasting and insolence, and sought an accommodation. Unfortunately, at
