^{page 375 note 2} MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xci, 333–6Google Scholar. Another copy of this letter in English is to be found in MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, iv, No. 115Google Scholar, and a Latin copy together with an English translation (of recent date) are to be found in MSS. Cornell, Collections of Monsieur Isaac Titsingh, “Lettre de creance de Macartney.” This letter, signed by Francis Baring, is identical with the original draft made by Lord Macartney and transmitted to Hehry Dundas on 17th March, 1792 (MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xci, 171–2Google Scholar). Part of it is printed in Staunton's, G. L.An Authentic Account . . ., i, 44–6Google Scholar.

^{page 376 note 1} In October, 1789, the Hoppo (O-êrh-têng-pu ), Imperial Customs officer at Canton, and Viceroy (Fu K'ang-an [d. 1796]) had proposed to the supercargoes that a deputation be sent from the foreign community at Canton to congratulate the Emperor upon his 80th birthday. Although one of the supercargoes agreed to go, the Canton officials said nothing more about the matter, and the deputation was never sent (Morse, , Chronicles, ii, 177–8, 182Google Scholar).

^{page 376 note 2} At the time this letter was written Lord Macartney was still a Baron. He became Viscount Macartney of Dervock, in the county of Antrim, Ireland, on 28th June, 1792. As a result of an arrangement made before he sailed for China he was made the Earl of Macartney in the county of Antrim, on 1st March, 1794 (Robbins, op. cit., pp, 179, 413).

^{page 377 note 1} The original of this letter together with a Latin version were presented by the Secret Committee at Canton (Henry Browne, Eyles Irwin, andWilliam Jackson) to the Governor of Kuangtung (Kuo Shih-hsün ) and the Hoppo (Sheng Chu ) on 10th October, 1792. The Viceroy was still the Fu K'ang-an mentioned in note 1, page 376 of this Journal, but he was absent in Tibet at the time conducting a campaign against the Goorkhas of Nepal. The letter together with a memorial were forwarded to Peking by Kuo Shih-hsiin. See Pritchard, , Crucial Years of Early Anglo-Chinese Relations (Pullman, Washington, 1936), pp. 312–15Google Scholar, and T'ing-nan, Liang, Yüeh Hai-kuan Chih (Canton ?, 1838), Ch. 23, pp. 3–4Google Scholar. The authorship of this last work is sometimes attributed to Yü K'un ), who was Hoppo or Superintendent of Customs in 1838, because his name appears on the title-page. In an article in the Ling-nan Hsüeh-pao (iv [04, 1935], 138)Google Scholar, dealing with Liang T'ing-nan's works, Sinn Yuk-ching (Hsien Yüch'ing) describes the Yüeh Hai-kuan Chih.

^{page 378 note 1} MSS. India Office, China: Factory Records, xxGoogle Scholar, for original, and China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 369–372, for a duplicate. Part of it is published in Bannister, op. cit., pp. lxv–lxxviii. The letter was received in England on 19th July, 1794, by the Swedish ship Sophia Magdalena and was read before the Court of Directors on 23rd July. As there is practically no paragraphing throughout the letter, it has been introduced for convenience sake.

^{page 378 note 2} MSS. India Office, China: Factory Records, xxGoogle Scholar, for original, and China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 31–116, and xciii, 59–90 of Part 3, for duplicates. Efforts are being made to publish this important dispatch.

^{page 378 note 3} Captain Mackintosh had accompanied the Embassy to Peking and Jehol and had been refused permission to precede the Embassy to Chusan, where the Hindostan had gone after unloading the presents near Tientsin. The Hindostan proceeded directly to Canton after Captain Mackintosh returned to her.

^{page 378 note 4} This short letter, dated Han-tchou-fou, 10th November, 1793, is not of much importance. It refers the Chairs to Macartney's dispatch to Henry Dundas, indicates that he has taken notes upon the transactions of each day which he will ultimately present to the Chairs, and concludes, “I have the strongest assurances that our trade with China will derive essential benefit from the Embassy, and we have obtained such information of the wants and habits of the Northern people of this country, as may lead to an considerable export of goods for their consumption by the way of Canton, till Time shall produce a more immediate communication with them. The measure therefore will prove to have been laid on the firm foundation of national wisdom, which looses no probable chance of enriching & aggrandizing the state by the extension of its reputation & commerce” (MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 27Google Scholar). Ch'ang Lin the new Viceroy of Canton joined the Embassy near Hangchow and escorted it overland to Canton. For information about the Canton officials of this period see the Yüeh Hai-huan Chih (Annals of the Kuangtung Customs), Ch. 7.

^{page 379 note 1} A Swedish agent in London proposed to his government a scheme to cause the failure of the Embassy, and the Dutch Chief at Canton was somewhat opposed to the Embassy at first, but so far as can be determined no actual steps were taken to injure the Embassy (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 298, 319, 323–4).

^{page 380 note 1} While Lord Macartney was at the Emperor's Court one of the most persistently unfriendly officials was Fu K'ang-an, titular Viceroy of Canton, who had recently been in Tibet in command of a Chinese army operating against an invasion of the Goorkhas from Nepal. He is supposed to have maintained that the English were helping the Goorkhas, whereas an agent of Lord Cornwallis had actually mediated between the Goorkhas and Chinese (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 332, 336, 372–3).

^{page 380 note 2} All of the Portuguese missionaries at Peking, especially Joseph Bernard d'Almeida, were supposed to have been unfriendly towards the Embassy, but it is unlikely that they did it any special harm (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 330, 333–5, 381).

^{page 381 note 1} See the Emperor's reply of 3rd October, 1793, to the King's letter (Backhouse, E. and Bland, J. O. P., Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking [London, 1914], pp. 324–5Google Scholar), and his reply on 7th October, 1793, to Lord Macartney's requests, printed in Morse, , Chronicles, ii, 250–1Google Scholar.

^{page 382 note 1} On the trip to Canton Lord Macartney received from Ch'ang Lin what he interpreted as an invitation to open a correspondence between Peking and London and to send a later Embassy. As a result he gave a note of compliment to Ch'ang indicating the desire of the English to continue the correspondence. This was forwarded to Peking and an Imperial reply sent down giving permission to send letters and pay tribute in the future (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 356–8).

^{page 382 note 2} Besides the presents given to the Emperor, numerous articles of British manufacture were given to the Viceroy of Chihli (Liang K'ên-t'ang ), the Governor of Kiangsi (Ch'en Huai ), Van and Chou (the two subordinate conductors of the Embassy), and to at least ten other minor officials who accompanied the Embassy. The articles distributed included watches, woollens, leather goods, cutlery from Birmingham and Sheffield, sword blades (especially Gill's from Birmingham), spectacles, and firearms (MSS. Cornell, Macartney Correspondence, Nos. 347, 349, 354).

^{page 383 note 1} For a reference to Tabinet, see JRAS., 04, 1938, p. 223Google Scholar. Experimental shipments of Irish linens in 1794–5 and 1795–6 were not approved and were disposed of by the Hong merchants in Manila.

^{page 383 note 2} Experimental shipments of Manchester cotton goods were made in 1786–7, 1788–9, and 1790–1, the latter of which sold at a slight profit, but as the Hong merchants did not approve of them no more were sent (Morse, , Chronicles, ii, 120, 152, 179–180Google Scholar; Pritchard, op. cit., p. 161). In general the Company did not favour the introduction of manufactures of the new industrial towns in the north of England.

^{page 384 note 1} In general the Company did not wish to be bothered with items of merchandise that did not sell in large quantities, preferring to leave such miscellaneous articles to the Private trade of the commanders and officers of its ships. See infra, Document No. 7, which will follow in a later number of this Journal.

^{page 384 note 2} Three chests of stationery were given to Van and Chou when they left the Embassy at Canton (MSS. Cornell, Macartney Correspondence, No. 354).

^{page 388 note 1} The plants were obtained near the boundary between Chekiang and Kiangsi provinces. See Macartney's Journal, in Robbins, , op. cit., p. 365Google Scholar and infra, Document No. 6, to be published in a later number of this Journal.

^{page 388 note 2} Robert Kyd (1746–1793), who in 1786 laid out the botanical gardens near Calcutta which were later taken over by the Company (see Dictionary of National Biography, and C. E. Buckland's Dictionary of Indian Biography).

^{page 389 note 1} Dr. James Dinwiddie accompanied the Embassy as “Machinist”. He is not mentioned in the Dictionary of National Biography, but there is a Biographical Memoir of J. Dinwiddie … Compiled from His Notes and Correspondence (Liverpool, 1868), by Proudfoot, William JardineGoogle Scholar, in the British Museum. See also infra, Document No. 6, to be published in Part III of this article.

^{page 389 note 2} The tallow tree is Sapium sebiferum Roxb., called in South China Chiu-tzû shu. Tallow was obtained from its seeds (S. Couling's Encyclopædia Sinica). In Staunton's, account of the Macartney Embassy (Authentic Account …, ii, 430)Google Scholar it is identified as Croton sebiferum after Linnaeus, and in Williams', S. Wells time it was known as Stillingia sebifera (Middle Kingdom [1882], ii, 11)Google Scholar. The varnish or lacquer tree is Rhus vernicifera D.C., called by the Chinese Ch'i, or , from which comes the sap used in making lacquer varnish (Couling's Encyclopædia Sinica, and Williams, op. cit., ii, 30).

^{page 390 note 1} Probably Karl Linnaeus (1707–1778). For the information obtained about silk culture see Staunton, op. cit., ii, 420 ff., and the last note appended to Document No. 7, to be published in Part III of this article.

^{page 391 note 1} No information of value regarding the manufacture of porcelain appears to have been obtained.

^{page 392 note 1} MSS. India Office, China: Canton Diaries, contain tabular accounts of the junk trade of Canton for a number of years after 1793Google Scholar.

^{page 392 note 2} Sir George Leonard Staunton corresponded with Louis de Poirot (French ex-Jesuit) and Nicholas Joseph Raux (French Lazarist), both of whom were at Peking, and with Robert Hanna (Irish Lazarist), who accompanied the Embassy from Canton to Tientsin but was forced to return to Canton before obtaining permission to enter the Emperor's service at Peking. Staunton's son, George Thomas, had some correspondence in 1802–3 with Louis François (Marie) Lamiot (French Lazarist), who, like Hanna, had accompanied the Embassy to Tientsin only to be forced to return to Canton, from which place he obtained permission to proceed to Peking. For the text of the Missionaries' letters see Pritchard, E. H., “Letters from Missionaries at Peking Relating to the Macartney Embassy,” T'oung Pao, xxxi (1934), 31–55Google Scholar. Lord Macartney presumably also had in mind Joseph de Grammont (French ex-Jesuit), who wrote a number of letters to the Ambassador during the course of the Embassy (ibid., pp. 8–24), and Jacob Ly and Paolo Cho, two Chinese trained in Naples, who accompanied the Embassy as interpreters and who remained in China as native Christian priests.

^{page 393 note 1} See supra, page 221, note 1. A list of the presents delivered to the Emperor is to be found in MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 155–170Google Scholar; MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, viii, Nos. 351–3Google Scholar. In addition to the presents purchased by the Company and sent out with the Embassy, valued at £15,610 (see supra, JRAS., April, 1938, p. 222), Macartney purchased from Henry Browne at Canton and from Captain Mackintosh and F. Macrae, surgeon of the Hindostan, various watches, guns, woollens, lens, and reflectors valued at about £3,781. Of these articles and of the presents originally sent, he consigned articles valued at £4,270 to the supercargoes at Canton or to Dr. Dinwiddie, making the total cost of presents and specimens delivered £15,121 (MSS. Cornell, Macartney Correspondence, Nos. 345, 436a).

^{page 394 note 1} Herschel's telescope was obtained from Henry Browne at Canton and its probable value was about £200. Parker's lens was purchased at a cost of £773 (ibid., viii, No. 345).

^{page 394 note 2} A letter from Father Grammont dated at Peking, 30th August, 1793, advised Macartney that he should provide presents for the Emperor's sons and eldest grandson, and for several of the high officials. As a result Lord Macartney purchased from Captain Mackintosh on 1st September, fifteen pairs of fine watches for £2,399. Only one pair, valued at £472, given to the Emperor as a personal present from Macartney, was used (Pritchard, , T'oung Pao, xxxi [1934], 19–20Google Scholar; MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, viii, No. 345)Google Scholar.

^{page 394 note 3} The Jackall was not sold at Canton, but sailed to India with the plants collected by the Embassy and sent to Sir John Shore under the direction of Dr. Dinwiddie (see below Document No. 6 and MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xciii, 363Google Scholar). She was presumably disposed of in India.

^{page 395 note 1} As early as 11th October, 1793, Captain Gower of the Lion had written to the Chairman of the Court of Directors calling attention to the fact that no provision had been made for paying the officers of the Lion, except himself, while the ship was in Chinese waters. When the Embassy arrived home Macartney again wrote to the Chairman about the matter, and was instructed to pay the officers £250 per year, being the allowance paid to similar ships in the Indian service (MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, vii, No. 307Google Scholar; MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, xcii, 23–4, 521Google Scholar).

^{page 396 note 1} See supra, page 380, note 1. The letter of 15th March, 1793, is in MSS. Cornell, , Macartney Correspondence, vi, No. 243Google Scholar, and that of 11th May, is referred to in one of 20th June, 1793 (No. 258). The letter of 15th March, tells of the beginning of war with France and of the negotiations of 1793 for a renewal of the Company's Charter. An effort to explain the Tibetan affair served as a pretext for an attempt to open a correspondence with the Peking government in 1795 (Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 372–3; Morse, , Chronicles, ii, 273–6)Google Scholar.