Analysis

The reception of the diplomatique and his suite, at the Court of Pekin by James Gillray (1793)

Bias and the Exchange Ceremony

Staunton’s first encounter with the Tartar Qing Dynasty begins prior to meeting the Qianlong Emperor himself. He initially describes the tent in which the exchange between Lord Macartney and the emperor was to take place as ornate; noting that the “tent was preferred to a large apartment in the palace.”[4] This observation alone does not necessarily carry any negative connotation. However, he follows this statement by contrasting the Tartar dynasty’s “ancient” preference for tents to the behaviors of its “more numerous and more civilized” mandarin subjects.[5] As a diplomat and naturalist, Staunton avoids explicitly stating his bias and seemingly makes this passive observation of the Tartar regime without directly mentioning the emperor. Nevertheless, his statement creates the “category” of the archaic Tartar, negatively framing his upcoming interaction with the Qianlong Emperor by contrasting his notion of modernity and Tartar archaism. This dichotomy creates the image of a dynasty that is out of touch with the modern world and therefore inferior to the British Empire.

Staunton continues to emphasize this dichotomy before the emperor’s arrival by documenting his observation that the “higher orders of mandarins” present at the embassy were “partly dressed in English cloth, instead of silk or furs.” He initially describes the clothing as compliments to the ambassadors, but then states that the wearing of English cloth is an “advantage granted through civility.”[7] Under the guise of passive observation, Staunton again argues for the modernity of the mandarin people over their Tartar ruler. More importantly, however, Staunton also links access to British goods and civility, or rather, progress to modernity. This statement heavily implies not only the superiority of Britain by comparison of commercial goods, but also indicates a certain inevitability of British dominance as China modernized. As such, Staunton provides Britons a sort of moral permission to intervene in China to provide the modern commercial “benefits” of British imperialism. These assertions would seemingly argue against documenting the culture of China given its assured submission to European refinements: explaining Staunton’s later choice to only briefly mention the “plain” clothing of the emperor, while devoting nearly a page to the attire of the head ambassador, Lord Macartney.[8]

After the emperor’s arrival, Staunton uses his observations of the ceremony to demonstrate the cultural backwardness of China, namely the supposed lack of Enlightenment ideals. Staunton observes how the loose robes of the Chinese has “retarded the progress of painting and sculpture” and that the emperor’s art gallery “[could not] stand the test of European criticism.”[9] In this rare instance, Staunton exceeds the role of passive observer. He does not merely identify a difference in Chinese art, but chauvinistically abstracts a complete lack of cultural value due to the absence of Enlightenment realism. He continues his assault on Chinese clothing by describing it as an “imposed obligation” on European missionaries.[10] Once again, Staunton avoids directly stating his bias and uses cultural observations to infer the inferiority of the Chinese people. Yet, the juxtaposition of the two statements implies a larger idea that European missionaries are forced to move culturally backwards from their Enlightenment superiority, much like the art, to live among the Chinese. This claim serves to further justify the supposed necessity of European intervention to modernize such backwards, non-Western nations.

There is further emphasis on the absence of Enlightenment thought in China in Staunton’s observations of the reception ceremony itself. In the famously debated kowtow issue, Lord Macartney’s refused to bow on two knees before the emperor as per Chinese tradition, ultimately conceding to bow on one knee as he would before the British King. Staunton regards this change in ritual as “so little [in] material,” despite documenting the major uproar it caused amongst Chinese court officials.[11] In addition to highlighting the backwardness of the Chinese officials for expressing their concern, Staunton’s observation implies that China had not realized the European Enlightenment principles that theoretically abandon such ritual practice in favor of practical pursuits.[12]

As the ceremony ends, Staunton again highlights the inferiority of the Chinese in describing their gifts to the embassy. The emperor gives Lord Macartney a “precious stone,” which is accounted “by [the Chinese]” as having high value.[13] He similarly describes the pouch the emperor gifted to Staunton’s son as “not at all magnificent.”[14] By distinguishing that only the Chinese ascribe value to the gifts, Staunton effectively strips all value from the ceremony and Chinese culture. He depicts the embassy’s goal of establishing an equal commercial network as a futile endeavor by the measure of each country’s goods. Prior to the embassy, “few, if any Britons regarded China as a polity in decline or seriously contemplated . . . activity against it.” [15] Yet, Staunton’s account depicts a scenario where intervention is the only option for access to Chinese goods of value. A view of international relations between China and Britain supports the view that Staunton perpetuated; from Britain’s aggressive attempts to open Chinese trade networks that resulted in both the First and Second Opium Wars, to the manipulation of the Open Door Policy that has allowed for the continued exploitation of the Chinese people by Western nations into the modern period.

Aside from his various academic and political positions, not much is known about George Staunton, first baronet. While he worked on behalf of the Crown and clearly documented commercial findings that would be used by the East India Trading Company, the extent of these motivations on his writing is unclear. It is important to note, however, that Staunton’s readership was not limited to the British Crown. The many editions and translations of publications related to the Macartney Embassy throughout the British Empire and America, including Staunton’s work, demonstrates an “enormous public interest in China” at the time.[16] Therefore, as one of the few widely available eye-witness accounts, it is likely that Staunton’s “scientific” observations helped establish the negative cultural perspective of China that would be used to justify Western invasion of China.