John Darwin argued that a formal empire could be defined by a sustained effort to assimilate a country to the political, economic or cultural system of another power. (John Darwin (1997) SS 9.2). Britain a maritime power and China a land-based empire, initially took significantly different approaches to the expansion of their empires and how these empires were attained and then managed, but ultimately Britain’s influence on India militarily, economically, culturally and politically after 1857, which mirrored how Chinese imperial culture before the nineteenth century expanded its influence militarily, politically and culturally. Approaches taken by both British and Chinese expansionist policy took different forms, but it was through British mercantile interests in the periphery that led to a diplomatic approach from the crown to the Chinese emperor and ultimately the expansion of British influence that led to an informal treaty that determined mercantile influence over the British and Chinese empires.
Adam Smith, in 1776 wrote in the Wealth of Nations that China was “one of the most richest, that is, one of the most cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world”. (Adam Smith, 1910 (1776) pp. 63-64). In the 18th Century the East India Company was importing raw silks, porcelain and by 1725, 250,000 pounds of tea a year, and in 1805, tea imports to Britain had increased to 24 million pounds of tea a year from Canton( Stephen Platt (2018) Pp. 12). Pomerantz argues that by 1800, the Chinese in the larger regions equalled the most prosperous European countries and they ate, dressed, lived better than and consumed more sugar than any European nation. (Pomerantz, 2000, Pp47-48).
In contrast Britain in 1760, had colonies in North America, the Caribbean and enclaves in Bombay, Madras and Bengal. (world map 5 (1763) Muir R & Phillip G., P9). Britain depended on access to China through Portuguese Macao in order for its factories to trade in Canton and was wholly dependent on the East India Company to further its interests in India and trade with China. By 1800, Britain’s population was less than nine million (Bernard Waites (2009) p.131), it had lost possession of the United States of America, it was at war with France, not only in Europe but also India and the America’s and had lost access to it’s markets in Europe. It took six months for the East India Company in London to communicate an order to its periphery in Bengal, its interests in India were dependent on a mercantile elite in the periphery, so much so, that in 1793, Lord Macartney’s embassy to China was sponsored by the east India Company. British interest in India was meant to be self-financing and was run by the East India Company who were answerable to their stockholders, and by the 1800s’ with the increase of troops and expansion in India, revenue from trade did not cover the costs involved. Revenue was raised through indemnities, tributes and subventions from states, and tax from administered territories became the source of the East India Companies income (John Key (2010) Pp. 412-414).
In 1800, the Qing dynasty depended on 20,000 civil officials, who raised revenue of 100 million taels, which related to 5% taxation from every member of the population in China (Adshead, (1995), p.246: Bernard Waites (2009) Pp. 130-131). Bernard Waites argues that Chinese officials were drawn from the social elites, whose social rank was determined by their qualification through exams, which tested their knowledge of Confucian classics, which immersed students in Confucian morals. Voltaire wrote that “the human mind cannot imagine a better government than this one where everything is to be decided by large tribunals subordinated to each other, of which members are admitted after severe examinations.” (Voltaire, Essai sur le moers)(Stephen Platt (2018),Pp49)). In essence China as an empire was multidimensional both social culturally and economically, territorially concentrated, supportive of its constituent parts and heavily centralized at its core (Alexander,. J Mortyl (1997)
In comparison, Britain in 1800 had 16,000 civil servants serving the central state, and British state revenues were equivalent to 45 million taels, government spending translated in 1800, as being 25% of British national income. (Adshead, (1995)Pp.246; Bernard Waites (2009) Pp.130-131)). The East India Company in 1806, introduced exams for the selection of candidates for service in India, which would lead in time to the adoption of exams to join the civil service in Britain. (Stephen Platt (2018) Pp.49). Orientalists with the East India Company had a genuine regard for the Institutions of India, they gained an understanding of the culture, so much so that Ahalayabai Holker, from Malwa warned against association with the British, who were “so restrained in their language and so disciplined in the field […] while other foes made their intentions clear by denunciations of ones family or religion”. (John Keay (2010) p.425). Company men explore India geographically, they mastered the languages. Literature and classified the flora and fauna. Scholar administrators, like Colin MacKenzie, Thomas Munro, John Malcolm and others contributed significantly to the scholarship of the culture, geography and history of their areas, making it possible to be seen making strong arguments for British intervention, and as such John Malcolm wrote in 1820 that “the general opinion of the natives of our comparative superiority in good faith, wisdom and strength to their own rulers”. (John Keay, (2010) p.247). However, Thomas Munro spelt out the savagery of British rule in the districts around Madras that “none had treated Indian’s with so much scorn as we, none has stigmatised the whole people as unworthy with trust, or as incapable of honesty, and as fit to be employed only where we cannot do without them”. (John Keay, (2010) p.427).
Qianlong ruled China with an iron fist, the dynasty assimilated into Han culture but retained its identity, as Macartney put it, “there are two distinct nations in China…. the Chinese and the Tartars, whose character essentially differs”. (quoted in Craymer-Byng, (1962): Bernard Waites (2009), p.128)). Qianlong ruled an empire that had extended imperial rule and extended Qing influence. His rule was celebrated by 1500 poems and essays, writings were engraved on stone monuments and portraits were painted in both the Chinese as well as the European styles. Giuseppe Castiglione created paintings and built marble buildings with a Jesuit priest in the European style, and by the time of MacCartney’s embassy, Quinlong had ruled China for 58 years. Quinlong was not unaware of Britain, or China’s trade with it, he needed the silver tariff, which China was the largest net importer. The silver was circulated inland and stabilized an economy that was unable to increase its revenue through land taxes because of Kangxi pledge, in order to win over landowners he had promised land taxes would not be raised again, and furthermore resources were needed to combat the White Lotus rebellion. (Stephen Platt (2018), Pp45-54). MacCartney, was therefore welcomed to the court of Qianlong as an important emissary of Britain and the trade that it brought China. MacCartney, after his failure to secure an embassy in China “perceived that the ground to be hallow under a vast speedy decay […] a slight collision might elicit a fire […] and spread flames of revolt from the extremity of China to the other. (quoted in Cramer Byng (1962) Pp236-9))PS 11.7 Pp3-4)).
Gallagher and Robinson argued that it was the energy of private interest – commercial, missionary and settler that changed how its interests were perceived at the core, and in this sense the free trade lobby had insisted that India’s economy be opened to investment and enterprise, which challenged the East India Companies influence at the core. In 1813, the East India Company had lost its monopoly in India and by 1833, it had to give up more valuable trade with China. The informal imperialism of the past had served a purpose and the East India Company existed as an influencer in name only. John Darwin argues that Victorian imperialism was capable of aggressive interventionism that was determined by public opinion and universalist arguments that created a mid-Victorian imperialism, which was “acutely vulnerable to the politico-financial cycle of enthusiasm and disillusionment at home”, (John Darwin (1997) SS 9.2, Pp1-4).
In this sense the trade in China of opium, grown in India and exported to China at an enormous profit for the traders was highlighted in a Times article published on 23rd October 1839, and titled “Proceedings with our view of the opium question, which matters of more immediate interest.” The article galvanised public opinion, but it was not until after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, that Lord Shaftesbury (Ashley) in April 1843 presented petitions against the trade from a number of religious bodies and made a speech that the opium trade “did immense harm and damage to the moral welfare of nations and individuals. British encouragement of the infamous traffic checked the progress of Christianity and impeded the civilisation of mankind”. (Geoffrey Finnalson (1981) Pp. 174-175). These moral arguments put forward in parliament and widely circulated did not change Britain’s reliance on gunboat diplomacy and interference in Chinese imperial power that was supported by British interests.
Post the 1857 mutiny, the policy of overturning the six hundred autonomous Princely states, as had been the policy of Bentinick-Macauley and Dalhousie, was superseded by promotion of a hierarchal structure that promoted the existing hierarchies, with Queen Victoria being crowned the empress of India. David Cannadine’s (2002) Orientalism, argues that on the collection of revenue the Raj needed dependable allies, and that the “preferred metropolitan” model could be applied to India in a way that was translatable to both Indian society and British”, (David Cannadine (2002) SS 10.3 Pp.2). In essence Britain had attained a structure of civil service that was determined by a form of indirect rule, while the rest of India was under the administration of its own. (Groenholt, (2006) p.629 (Bernard Waites (2009) p.110)). These ideas and concepts that Britain promoted in India created the illusion of otherness between British and Indians, a society determined by structures defining identity that dominated through authority, culture and caste. Edward Said argued that knowledge is never neutral and the object of scrutiny, and the legitimacy to act in the belief that one’s actions are empirically justified” (Bernard Waites (2009) p.94).
Ultimately the Qing empire and the British Indian empires ended because they lacked an ideology that could envelop the majority into the imperial culture that was dominant. The maritime power of Britain was dependent initially on the doctrines of mercantilism and free trade, which lead to economic arguments from the periphery with dominating doctrines that determined the cores ideological approach. In a similar way Qing China’s military, economic and ideological sinews were dependent on a powerful elite at the core of its government and though the Qing assimilated into the culture of China, and expanded its borders, they were essentially a minority power dominating the economy, ideology and bureaucracy of the majority. In essence Britain and China’s power was determined by cultural difference with mechanisms that coerced and demanded consent of the majority to accept the arguments of imperial rule and the institutions governing them.
Bibliography
Cannadine, D. (2002) Ornamentalism: How the British saw their Empire, London. Penguin. Pp. 41-6, 56-7.
Cramer -Byng, J. (1957) Lord Macartney’s embassy to Peking in 1793: from official Chinese documents’, Journal of Oriental Studies, Vol. 8. No.4 pp 119-20.
Darwin, J. (1997) ‘Imperialism and the Victorians: the dynamics of territorial expansion’, English Historical Review, vol. 112. No. 447, June. pp. 614, 617, 619-20, 627-31, 640-2.
Groenholt, F. (2006) The History of the Indian princely states: bringing the puppets back onto center stage’. History Compass, vol. 4,. No. 4, pp.629-44
Hack, K. (2008) Tools and Terms for studying empires. Unit 2. Milton Keynes, Open University
Lawrence, P. (2009) Empire: 1492-1975, How do empires work, Imperial Cultures, Unit 10,. Milton Keynes, Open University.
Keay, J. (2010) India, A history from the earliest civilisations to the boom of the twenty first century. London, Harper Press
Motyl, A (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
Platt, S. (2018) Imperial Twilight, The opium war and the end of China’s last golden age. London, Atlantic Books.
Waites, B. (2009) Empire: 1492-1975, How do empires work, A Different kind of Empire, Lord Macarty and the Chinese Empire. Milton Keynes, Open University.
Muir, R. and Phillip, G. (1927) Putnams Historical Atlas Medieval and Modern (6th edn), New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, p.77. found in Visual Sources Book, .A326 Empire: 1492-1975, Milton Keynes, (2008) The Open University.
Proceeding 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
Current Affairs 
Leave a comment