country, as far as regards the fifteen ancient provinces, is fubjed
to little variation, and efpecially thofe parts over which the
grand inland navigation is carried ; the only parts, in fa d , that
foreigners travelling in China have any chance o f vifiting.
In this route no very great variety nor number o f fubjeds
occur in the department o f natural hiftory. Few native plants,
and ftill fewer wild animals, are to be expeded in thofe parts o f
a country that are populous and well cultivated. Indeed the
rapid manner in which the prefent journey was made, was ill
fuited for colleding and examining fpecimens even o f thofe few
that did occur.
On thefe confiderations it is hoped that the indulgence o f
the reader will not be withheld, where information on fuch
points may appear to be defedive. A French critic * (perhaps
without doing him injuftice he may be called a hypercritic) who
happened to vifit Canton for a few months, fome fifty years
ago, has, with that happy confidence peculiar to his nation, not
only pointed out the errors and defeds o f the information communicated
to the world by the Engliih and the Dutch embaffies,
but has laid down a fvllabus o f the fubjeds they ought to have
made themfelves completely acquainted with, which, initead o f
feven months, would feem to require a refidence o f feven years in
the country. But the author o f the prefent work refts his confidence
in the Engliih critics being lefs unreafonable in their demands
; and that their indulgences will be proportioned to the
difficulties that occurred in colleding accurate information.
* Monfieur (I beg his pardon) Citoym Charpentier Coffigny.
With
With this reliance, the defcriptions, obfervations, and companions,
fuch as they are, he prefents to the public, candidly acknowledging
that he is aduated rather by the hope o f meeting its
forbearance, than b y the confidence o f deferving its approbation.
Perhaps it may not be thought amifs, before he enters on the
more immediate fubjed o f the work, to corred, in this place, a
very miftaken notion that prevailed on the return o f the embafly,
which was, that an unconditional compliance o f Lord Macartney
with all the humiliating ceremonies which the Chinefe might
have thought proper to e x a d from him, would have been pro-
dud ive o f refults more favourable to the views o f the embafly.
Aflertions o f fuch a general nature are more eafily made than
refuted, and indeed unworthy o f attention ; but a letter o f a
French miffionary at Pekin to the chief o f the Dutch fad o ry
at Canton is deferving o f fome notice, becaufe it fpecifies the
reafons to which, according to the writer’s opinion, was owing
the fuppofed failure o f the Britiffi embafly. In fpeaking o f
this fubjed he obferves, “ Never was an embafly deferving o f
“ better fuccefs 1 whether it be confidered on account o f the
“ experience, the wifdom, and the amiable qualities o f Lord
“ Macartney and Sir George Staunton ; or o f the talents, the
“ knowledge, and the circumfped behaviour o f the gentlemen
“ who compofed their Suite; or o f the valuable and curious
“ prefents intended for the Emperor— and yet, ftrange to tell,
“ never was there an embafly that fucceeded fo i l l !
H You. may be curious, perhaps, to know the reafon o f an
“ event fo unfavourable and fo extraordinary. I will tell you
“ in