British-China Trade Letters and Opium War Diplomacy

Introduction: Trade Imbalances and Diplomatic Discontinuity

Miscommunications between Britain and China abounded in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, culminating eventually in the Opium Wars. Lord Palmerston's 1840 letter to the Minister of the Emperor of China and King George III's 1792 letter sent directly to the Emperor both reveal British desperation to establish trade relations with China. Initially motivated by access to China's tea markets, the British East India Company soon recognized the lucrative potential of diversifying into the global opium trade as well. Even prior to this newfound hunger for opium, the British sought free trade with China, as evidenced in these letters.

Yet as the tone and content of these two documents show, China had little to gain from doing business with Britain. China's concept of international diplomacy also appears qualitatively different from that of the British, although these two British documents naturally offer only a one-sided view of the situation. The conciliatory tone in these letters shows that Britain was indeed in a subordinate position with regard to establishing bilateral trade agreements. Trade imbalances, as well as stark cultural differences and divergent political philosophies, led to a persistent foreign relations discontinuity between Britain and China.

Based on a textual analysis of the Palmerston letter and that of King George III, three specific indications of foreign relations discontinuity emerge: a shift from King George's blatantly conciliatory and seemingly insincere tone to Lord Palmerston's paternalistic one; an obvious inconsistency in the claim that the British mission was educational in nature even while underscoring the desire for trade; and ultimately a tacit acknowledgment that Britain needed China more than China needed Britain.

Tonal Shift from Conciliation to Paternalism

The differences between King George's letter and that of Lord Palmerston are striking, particularly with regard to tone, style, and theme. King George's sycophantic tone belies Britain's core objective: to overcome the asymmetrical trade relations that existed between Britain and China. Britain sought to endear itself to the Chinese, and a personal letter from the King served just that purpose. The King's language is flowery and excessively laudatory, referring to the "bounds of friendship and benevolence" that exist between the two realms (King George, p. 245).

Lord Palmerston's tone, by contrast, is derogatory and self-righteous, revealing the underlying hypocrisy of the Crown's original intent. Whereas George had claimed to seek diplomatic relations for the purpose of intellectual intercourse, the exchange of ideas, and education, Palmerston had by 1840 done away with any such pretenses. Palmerston claims the moral high ground over the Chinese, as when he tells Beijing: "If it enforces that Law on Foreigners, it is bound to enforce it also upon its own Subjects; and it has no right to permit its own Subjects to violate the Law with impunity, and then to punish Foreigners for doing the very same thing" (Palmerston, p. 1).

In the five decades between King George's original appointment of Viscount Macartney as ambassador and the onset of the Opium Wars, Britain had shown its true colors. Palmerston refers repeatedly to the "demands" Britain is placing on China — a country that had hosted British merchants for decades.

Inconsistencies in Britain's Stated Mission

King George and Palmerston both seek to solidify and strengthen the political and economic relationship between Britain and China. Even though King George tries to cloak the Crown's endeavors with idealism, the monarch ultimately admits, "no doubt the interchange of commodities between Nations distantly situated tends to their mutual convenience, industry, and wealth" (King George, p. 245). However, just a few paragraphs earlier, King George claims that Britain's endeavors in China were "not for the purpose of conquest, or of enlarging Our dominions which are already sufficiently extensive…not for the purpose of acquiring wealth…but for the sake of increasing Our knowledge of the habitable Globe" (King George, p. 244).

Given Britain's contemporary activities in South Asia and its having recently lost the United States, China's emperor would no doubt have found the King's letter almost humorous. The tension between stated idealism and obvious commercial motivation is one of the most revealing features of the King George letter, and it foreshadows the more openly aggressive posture that Palmerston would adopt a half-century later.

In fact, King George had promised the Chinese crown that any business would be conducted in accordance with Chinese law and custom. George stated outright that "such intercourse requires to be properly conducted" (p. 245). Similarly, he assured the Chinese Emperor that the newly appointed ambassador had been instructed to punish anyone who transgressed Chinese law or disturbed the peace. It is likely King George was sincere when he wrote those words, since conflict would have been anathema to trade — the ultimate goal of the Macartney mission.

Conclusion: Destined for Conflict

While it would have been helpful to take into account the Chinese position on the matter of the opium trade crackdown, it is evident from these two correspondences that from the beginning, Britain and China were destined for foreign relations discontinuities. The trade imbalances had existed for at least a century prior to the Opium Wars, placing the British Crown in an unusually subordinate diplomatic role. China's position as the dominant regional power made it a natural obstacle to British economic and political ambitions in Asia. Taken together, King George's obsequious idealism and Palmerston's belligerent paternalism map the full trajectory of a relationship that could only end in conflict.