In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Management of Foreign Relations at Canton, 1817–26 Ruan Yuan was Governor-General of Guangdong and Guangxi from November 1817 to August 1826. As ‘trade and tribute in the Confucian view were cognate aspects of a single system of foreign relations,’1 the governor-general at Canton was the highest Chinese authority dealing with foreigners in China on specific issues and on a day-to-day basis. In the port of Canton there were foreign traders in the foreign factories and on the foreign ships. The provincial authorities’ responsibilities therefore embraced all the foreigners within Chinese jurisdiction, except the Russians in Beijing. This assignment was important for Ruan Yuan. From the historical perspective, it also gave him international exposure, so his name has been known outside China since his time. When Ruan Yuan arrived at Canton, there were several potentially explosive issues in Sino-British relations. The Congress of Vienna (1815) had ended the Napoleonic wars officially, so British renewed their interests in expanding trade in Asia, including China. The failure of the Amherst mission the year after had left certain issues unresolved. The fact that five British ships carrying the mission to Dagu (大沽) had managed to survey the Chinese coast from Hebei to Canton, leaving Jiaqing and the court more sensitive than ever to the issue of British naval presence in Chinese waters. Jurisdiction over foreign nationals in port was also a source of serious disagreement. The importation of opium and exportation of sycee silver, both prohibited by imperial decree, were to become a major area of controversy in time. Diplomacy as an art of managing foreign relations was outside the Chinese experience. As Westerners at Canton were neither tribute bearers nor alien conquerors, Ruan Yuan chose to manage his dealings with foreigners as a matter of security and control. The Canton system governed all foreign (except Russian and tributary) trade in China, which had been confined to the port of Canton since 1760. Under this 1. John King Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (1953), p. 33. 136 Ruan Yuan, 1764–1849 system, foreigners were required to live and work in their quarters in Canton, known as the factories, during the trading season. They carried on their buying and selling through franchised hong merchants. As time went on, these hong merchants performed an increasing number of functions. By 1817, they not only settled prices, sold goods, guaranteed duties, negotiated with and restrained the foreigners, controlled smuggling, and leased the factories to them, they also managed all the aspects of banking, acted as interpreting agencies, supported militia and educational institutions, and made all manners of presents and contributions to the authorities far and near.2 While leadership of the foreign merchants rested in the Select Committee of the British East India Company, each foreign firm licensed to transact business in Canton, as well as each of its ships coming into the port, had to be secured by a hong merchant. The hong merchant had to guarantee the good conduct of the officers and crew of the ship, and to assure the Chinese authorities that the ship was not carrying contraband. Under this system, the security merchant also served the important role as the intermediary between the Chinese officials and the foreign traders. Despite accusations by the Jiaqing and Daoguang Emperors that Ruan Yuan was expending more time and energy on establishing academies and compiling books than on affairs of state, a sentiment echoed by the twentieth-century American historian John King Fairbank, both British and Chinese records show that Ruan Yuan had taken the conduct of foreign affairs at Canton very seriously.3 He adhered strictly to the protocol of the Canton system, handling negotiations with foreigners through the hong merchants, refusing ‘to establish direct communications between the local government and the foreign community’.4 Although foreigners in Canton complained about Ruan Yuan’s ‘inflexibility’5 at that time, they remembered him 2. Fairbank, p. 55. 3. Jiaqing’s accusations were communicated to Ruan Yuan through court letters. See, for instance, GZD-JQ019639. Similar admonition came from the Daoguang Emperor as quoted in GZD-DG 000013. Both were angry because they felt that Ruan Yuan was not exerting all his efforts in suppressing secret society activities. Fairbank was citing Ruan Yuan as an example of the ‘intellectual unpreparedness for Western contact’ on the part of Chinese officials of the early nineteenth century. Fairbank, p. 20. The sole source cited by him was ECCP, which did not...

Share