Current Affairs

The ideas determining empire in the nineteenth and the end of empire in the twentieth century, could be found in the genesis of the Portuguese empire in the sixteenth century, and the Dutch and British empires in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The monopolisation of trade by Europeans, led to a dominant core elite determined to install its values on the periphery, which led to dominance of another culture and the values of that culture.

Arguments for assimilation and integration by a culture that was alien succeeded in China, where a conquest aristocracy in the form of the Qing dynasty integrated and empowered bureaucrats to administer through existing laws and values found in previous dynasties.

Lord McCartney wrote in his journal during his embassy to the Emperor Ch’ien-Lung 1793-1794, that the ‘government […] is properly the tyranny of a handful Tartars over more than three hundred million Chinese.’ (Cramer-Byn 1962. (PS 11.7)). The reality was that the Qing rulers who had conquered Beijing from the Ming dynasty in 1644, had expanded their territory west and into central Asia, assimilated new territories but it was not until Emperor Ch’ien-Lung (Qianglong), that the empire was at its largest and had assimilated Manchuria in the northeast to Tibet in the West. The empire was larger than Europe, so when Lord McCarthy arrived, Ch’ien-Lung was eighty-two years old and had ruled China for fifty-eight years. (Platt, 2018, p.46). Lord McCartney’s assessment of the Qing dynasty was that they were ‘ferocious in their manners, were conducted by a leader of calm judgement as well as of a resolute mind. […] leading to a ‘state of subjection, […] the government though absolute, was at least methodical and regular.’ (Cranmer Byng 1962. PS11.7).

Lord McCarthy argues that the assimilation of the tartars into Chinese culture is instilled through the education and instruction of the young Tartars by Chinese teachers. However, McCartney also argues that the Tartars dominate as Commanders of the Army, are the Viceroys of the provinces and ‘the great officers of the state.,’ whereas the Chinese are ‘more educated, more learned and more patient than the Tartars,’ (Cranmer-Byng 1962. PS11.7) and that the instructions of the Tartars are carried out by the Chinese who had been indoctrinated with Confucian morals and were loyal even without supervision.

Eighteenth century philosophers argued that the officials governing China were a model of ‘meritocracy’, Voltaire wrote that ‘The human mind cannot imagine a government better than this one where everything is decided by large tribunals.’ (Platt, 2018. Pp49). Even Montesque argued that China was well governed, and in the mid-eighteenth century the East India Company established meritocratic examinations inspired by what traders had learned in Canton, which ultimately would become the foundation of the British Governments own civil-service exams.

Though Lord McCartney’s mission had failed to impress Ch’ien-Lung, to accept a mission, the objective of Ch’ien-Lung was to increase trade, as Canton was the primary source of silver, which it was the largest net importer in the world. China’s need to import silver was determined by its inability to increase revenues, with eighty percent of its revenue derived from land taxes and a population that had doubled during his reign.

The British East India Company, the Dutch East India Company (VOC), other Europeans and the American’s had been trading through the port of Canton, with the Portuguese in Macao. Spices, silks, tea and other commodities were traded throughout Asia and into Europe. In 1500, Europe only took about a quarter of spice production from Asia, and with the opening up of the sea route around the cape, according to Pearson, the Portuguese could buy pepper for one or two grammes of silver and sell it for at least twenty in Europe. He further argues that the Portuguese were paying 6 cruzados per quintal for pepper and getting a price of 22 cruzados in Lisbon, which equated to a profit of two hundred and sixty percent. Put into perspective, Venice imported 3,500,000 pounds of spices a year, in 1502, which averaged 1,000,000 pounds, while the Portuguese were importing 2,300,000 per year, Chaunu estimates that in the sixteenth century corn traded by sea in the Mediterranean was worth 9,000 tons of silver, gold and silver coming from the Americas was worth 18,000 tons of silver and that the commodities Portugal was bringing from Asia were worth between 7,000 and 7500 thousand tons of silver. Over half of Portugal’s state revenue came from gold in Africa, spices and peppers from Asia. (Pearson, 1987. Pp40-42).

Francesco Carletti a Florentine, who ended up travelling the world for eight years, accounted for a trip from Macao to Goa. He describes the journey as ‘the noblest for the traffic in spices […] all through the Molucca Islands, five of which supply cloves […] from nearby places come peppers.’ Carletti, goes on to describe that the Captain of the ship as the only person allowed to trade, ‘a Portuguese gentlemen […] makes an incredible profit’ and that they pay for the spices through ‘cotton cloths painted in various colours., […] No sooner has the captain concluded this transaction than he returns to sell to the Portuguese merchants at a higher price all the spices/…] taking in exchange those cotton cloths […]from India-that is, from the coast of Sao Tome and Coromandel – and which he uses […] to trade with the Javanese.’ Francesco Carletti, explains that the Captain is beholden to the King of Spain, who at the ‘grace and mercy of the king as repayment for services’ for a term of three years earns between ‘250,000 and 300,000 scudos.’ (Francesco Carletti, 1964. Pp. 190-5, PS 6.3).

Unfortunately for the Portuguese for most of the sixteenth century all the trade was determined by being a crown monopoly, and to sustain the monopoly in Asia, it demanded capital to build ships and fortifications to protect that trade. Eric Wolfe argues that the kingship was a tribute taking elite, and that the wealth did not cover administrative or costs for going to war. Debts were accrued and bankruptcy led to the wealth generated in the periphery being transferred from the control of the exchequer to wealthy merchant bankers. (Wolfe, 1982, pp.123-4).

Furthermore, in the 1560’s, the spice trade in Venice had doubled while Portugal’s had declined even though areas producing the spices had increased production. Southwest India produced 258,000 quintals, and Portugal was only capable of taking between 20,000 and 30,000, while the rest was either consumed locally, or exported overland to Europe. Furthermore, their control over nutmeg, mace and cloves was even less and only ten percent was exported to Lisbon. (Pearson, 1987. Pp43, 44, 45). Between 1580 and 1590 sixteen per cent of all Portuguese shipping was lost, ten years later over forty five percent of shipping was lost, Ole Peter Grell, believes that some of the shipping was lost through being overloaded, but he also believed that other ships were captured by the Dutch. (Ole Peter Grell, 2008, p.216).

The Dutch East India Company (VOC) founded in 1602, challenged the crown-controlled system of Portugal and Spain, through commercial capitalism, Dutch merchants who had successfully traded in the ‘rich trades’ from the east, were now prevented by a Spanish embargo in 1598. Within a year, eight companies were involved in trades in the east and within two years, sixty-five ships were involved in trade in the East Indies. But in 1601, spice prices declined because of competition between the companies and it was becoming unsustainable.

In 1602, the advocate of Holland, Johan Van Oldenbarevelt, merchants and politicians created a chartered stock company, which was backed by the state. Unlike the semi-formal empire of the Portuguese, the Dutch did not set out to create a formal empire, they acquired bases to establish and monopolise commodities and were determined by the principle of trade rather than govern. (Fieldhouse 1982[1965]. Ppl43-152. (SS 2.3)). However, Dutch interests centred on Batavia, trade from China and it was only Ceylon that was determined by the merchant core in the United Provinces. Batavia was self-governing and consisted of a governor-general, a director general and a council of officials. Fieldhouse argues that the governor generals position was autonomous, and entirely run by officials. However, as it was a commercial concern and there was no settlement, it was only intended to control commercial concerns, and indigenous rulers followed their own laws, even when the Dutch were capable of instilling its own argument on the indigenous population.

From 1623, returns on investment in the VOC were never less than 11.25 percent (1623-32) and peaked between 1713 and 1722 at 36%, but 1737 onwards dividends averaged 12.5%, which Fieldhouse argues was only made possible by borrowing to pay a dividend to its shareholders, which led to debts of 119 million florin and bankruptcy in 1795. (Fieldhouse, 1982 [1965], ppl43-152 (SS.2.3)).

Sir Joshiah Child, Governor of the English East India Company in 1687, believed that it was essential to establish ‘a polite of civill and military power and create and secure such a large revenue to maintain both, […] a large grounded, sure English dominion in India for all time to come.’ (Fieldhouse, 1982. [1965]. Ppl43-152. 9(SS 2.3)). By 1717, the East India Company had fortified Bombay, Madras and Fort William. Bombay had been ceded to the company in 1661, by Portugal, and it controlled the Malabar coast and Surat, where the company had a number of factories.

Madras was held with the permission of the King of Golconda, and in 1690 by the Mogul emperor. The most valuable property was Fort William, built in Calcutta, the company also collected taxes for the emperor, who in 1717 granted a farman and also exempted the company from paying duties and taxes for an annual payment of 3000rupees a year. (Fieldhouse, 1982. (1965). Ppl43-152 (SS.2.3). In essence, by 1717, Sir Joshiah Child had achieved security for the company’ factories, which were profitable enough to pay a dividend in 1711-12 of 10%, with exports totalling £500,000, by 1850, exports totalled £1,000,000 and in 1770s, £1,700,000. (Fieldhouse, 1982. (1965). Ppl43-152 (SS.2.3).

However, the balance of trade between Britain and India was limited due to acts passed in Parliament, which protected British manufacturers. To offset the balance of trade discrepancy, the East India Company relied on profits from selling tea that was imported from its factory in Canton and tried to balance the deficit by selling Indian products to China and making up the difference with silver ingots.

In 1848, Palmerston the foreign secretary argued that Britain led civilization and claimed, that ‘we stand at the head of moral, social and political civilization.’ A commons committee report in 1837, argued that the objective of the empire was ‘for Britain to afford the people of the world the opportunity of becoming partakers of that civilization, that innocent commerce.’ (Lynn, 1999. Pp. 101-8 (SS 9.1)).

In a Times newspaper editorial, titled Proceeding with our view of the opium question, which matters of more immediate interest.’ an American resident in Canton, argued in a pamphlet about the opium trade, ‘that power, wealth and science have been systematically prostituted, […] that growth that was whitening the fields of India and filling the treasury was crowding the brothels and dungeons of China with wretchedness and crime.’ Furthermore, The Times editorial quotes a paper written by Dr Butter, in 1835, which argues that, ‘The great object of the Bengal opium agencies is to furnish an article suitable to the peculiar tastes of China.’ (The Times, 1839. (PS 11.8)).

The reality for the Chinese was that opium imported from India had until 1820 remained constant at between four and five thousand chests per year, however, by the summer of 1828, opium exported into Canton had doubled to ten thousand chests, which had made up more than half the imports into China, and for the first time given Britain a trade surplus in its favour. Stephen Platt, argues that by 1830-31, Canton imported 18,956 chests of opium, servicing one hundred and fifty thousand users, with a value of $13 million. (Platt, 2018. Ppl85-187).

In 1832, two years before the dissolution of the East India Factory in Canton, the company without agreement with China, or permission from London, fitted out a ship called the Lord Amherst with textiles, and employed Karl Gutzlaff, a missionary and Hugh Hamilton Lindsay, an employee of the East India Company to sail into China. Sailing from Macao in February1832, the Lord Amherst sailed up the coast of China as far as Korea, and though at first thought of by the Qing officials as being part of a British naval fleet, Lindsay and Gutzlaff, managed to persuade Chinese officials that they were a private ship blown off course. The purpose of the voyage was to test whether there was any demand for the textiles the ship was carrying, however, it was also a mission for Karl Gutzlaff to introduce the Chinese to the bible that Robert Morrison had translated and moralise about the evils of gambling and opium. Lindsay on the other hand handed out pamphlets translated into Chinese and written by an East India employee titled ‘A Brief Account of the English Character’, which informed the Chinese that the ‘British had only ever wanted peaceful and friendly trade.’ However, the success of the voyage was that they found merchants willing to defy authorities and willing to do business with the British. When the London head office of the East India Company were informed of the voyage, they were appalled and argued that the journey could have done irreconcilable harm to the reputation of the company and empire. ‘What if a Chinese ship had come illegally to England, with an illegal cargo, […] incited the people against their rulers? (so) why should we […] act so decidedly in defiance (of) the Chinese, whose commerce we have sought and wish to retain.’ (Platt, 2018. Pp263). Stephen Platt argues that behind the voyage of the Lord Amherst, was William Jardin a privateer and the largest opium dealer in Canton and had after the voyage employed Gutzlaff as Jardine and Matheson’s chief interpreter responsible for ‘escorting the opium ships down the coast, […] handing out his little biblical tracts along the way.’ (Platt,2O18.pp264).

The reality was that with the demise of the East India Company, Parliament embraced free enterprise, repealed the corn laws and voices such as Richard Cobden who argued that free enterprise was the way forward. He believed that British manufacturing could compete on a world stage freely and that free trade in the view of Cobden was ‘the only human means of effecting universal and permanent peace, bringing prosperity to all […] and rendering international conflict a thing of the past.’ (Lynn, 1999. Pp. 101-8 (SS.9.1)).

Colonial reformers argued for change, Edward Gibbon Wakefield pushed for a different relationship between the periphery and the core, but also wanted to maintain the relationship with the periphery though advocating self-government. But the overall criticism of the old colonial system was that it was corrupt and expensive. However, in reality the laissez faire attitude to business interests in the world contended with moral arguments at home, and Lord Palmerston who had been foreign secretary in government between 1830-1851, and served two terms as Prime Minister between 1855-1865, argued that it was Britain’s role to lead the world through ‘expanding British interests overseas by force wherever necessary, justified by appeals at home by moral imperatives.’ (Lynn, 1999. Pp.101-8 (SS.9.1)).

The decline of the Qing empire in the nineteenth century could have also been argued that the success that it had in its growth was also a cause of its decline. The growth of its population doubling in the eighteenth century, and the introduction of new crops to feed itself could not be sustained. Agriculture declined as food production was pushed onto marginal land, a trade deficit which had been a surplus until the opium trade, meant that the investment necessary to manage the infrastructure, such as river management, irrigation and inland waterways collapsed. Dykes crumbled, the yellow river silted up and changed course, which led to starvation and social disorder. (Waites, 2009. Pp.141-144)

The concept of free trade dominated British foreign and commercial policy, and with the signing of the Nanking treaty on 29 August 1842, they believed that they had favoured status in treaty ports, however, within two years the treaty port system had been internationalised by the Chinese. By July 1854, British and American vessels owed over a million taels to the Chinese in unpaid customs duties. In 1858, British and French negotiators coerced the imperial court in the Tianjin treaty to permit foreigners to travel anywhere in China, allow missionaries freedom of movement, legalise the opium trade and set import duties at 2.5%. (Waites, 2009. Pp.141-144). Though supported by the western powers, the Qing dynasty was in essence dismantled, its territorial integrity was challenged in 1895 in the Sino-Japanese wars, it ceded territory and was humiliated militarily.

The determination of the Portuguese empire to dominate and monopolise the spice trade, was similar to its demise as a colonial power over the four hundred and fifty years of Portuguese colonialism, it expanded its territorial interests initially, then contracted and existed without developing or being able to benefit from its initial success. Superseded by the Dutch VOC, whose ruthless determination and commercial acumen had evolved into a powerful trading house was itself surpassed by the success of the British East India Company. For China and the Qing dynasty, the initial exposure to the Portuguese, Dutch VOC and the British East India Company, was determined by its own imperial dominance in the region, but its failure was that as a continuous empire it was unable to transform and evolve and challenge the arguments determining the laissez faire business interests, the opium trade and Britain’s dominance in the world.

Word count: 3004.

Bibliography

Primary sources;

Francesco Carletti, (1964) ‘Third chronicle of the East Indies. Which treats of the voyage made from the Island of Macao in China to Malacca and thence to Goa, and what occurred during that voyage.’ In my Voyage Around the World (trans. Herbert Weinstock), New York, Pantheon Books, Pp. 190-5. [Primary Source 6.3]

J.L. Cranmer Byng (ed.) (1962) An Embassy to China: Being the journal kept by Lord Mccartney during his Embassy to the Emperor Ch’ien-lung 1793-1794, Longmans, pp 236-9 (notes edited). [Primary Source 11.4]

Hansards Parliamentary Debates (1846) reprinted in The Debate upon the Corn Laws, 2 cols, London, Office of the society for the Protection of Agriculture and British Industry, vol. 1,

pp.590-1. [Primary Source 9.3]

“Proceeds with our view of the ‘opium question,’ which matters of more immediate interest.” The Times [London, England] 23 Oct. 1839:4. The Times Digital Archive. Accessed

5 June 2015. [Primary Source 11.8]

Secondary Sources

D.K. Fieldhouse (1982 [1965]) The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth Century, Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp 11-13. [Secondary Source 2.2]

D.K. Fieldhouse (1982 [1965]) The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth Century, Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp. 143-52. [Secondary Source 2.3]

Martin Lynn (1999) ‘British policy, trade, and informal empire in the mid-nineteenth century’, in Andrew Porter (ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 3: The Nineteenth Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 101-8. [Secondary Source 9.1]

Secondary Sources (continued)

Alexander J. Motyl (1997) ‘Thinking about empire’ in Karen Barkey and Mark von Hagen (eds) After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation Building, Boulder, Colarado, and Oxford, Westview Press, pp. 20-2 (original notes omitted). [Secondary Source 2.1].

Niels Steengaard (1982) ‘The Dutch East India Company as an institutional innovation’, in M. Aymard (ed.) Dutch Capitalism and World Capitalism, Cambridge University Press, pp. 235

57. [Secondary Source 6.2]

Other sources

Ole Peter Grell (2008) (Block 2) How do Empires Begin, Empires of Trade? The Portuguese and the Dutch in East Asia 1580-1670. The Open University.

John Keay. (2010[2000]) India. A History from the earliest civilisations to the boom of the twenty-first century. Harper Press Paperback Edition, London.

Stephen Platt (2018) Imperial Twilight, The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Publisher; Knopf Doubleday Group, Penguin Random House, L.L.C.. Great Britain.

M.N. Pearson (1987) The New Cambridge History of India. 1.1. The Portuguese in India. Cambridge University Press 1987.

Bernard Waites (2009) (Unit 11) A Different Kind of Empire: Lord Macartney and the Chinese empire. The Open University