Early Relations between the United States and China. 137 



memorialized, and since even a merchant ship had never been 

 there. Then, too, said the viceroy, there would be no interpreter 

 at the capital, and no commissioner with power to make a treaty. 

 The English had not carried on their negotiations at Peking, an 

 imperial edict had already been issued (after Forbes' warning) 

 ordering Gushing to be stopped, and after all, a treaty was not 

 at all necessary. ^^"^ This began a correspondence between the 

 two in which the American hastened the appointment of a com- 

 missioner by threatening to go to Peking. March 23d, Gushing 

 replied to Ghing's first letter, refusing to discuss the matter of a 

 treaty with any but an imperial commissioner, and still insisting 

 on going north, although expressing his willingness to go by 

 land.^^'' Ghing replied that the latter was impossible,^*" and that 

 a reply from Peking might be expected in about three months."^ 

 Some four days later Gushing again expressed his intention of 

 going north, saying that if the court had wanted him to stay 

 at Canton it would have forwarded the viceroy instructions for 

 his reception, and reminding him that a refusal to receive 

 embassies of friendly states was considered among western 

 nations a just cause for war.^*- This, and the proposal that the 

 "Brandywine" come up the river to Whampoa and fire a salute, 

 brought a reply from Ghing after the short interval of three 

 days, still protesting that a treaty was unnecessary, since trade 

 had been carried on so long and so successfully without one, 

 and informing Gushing that the law of the land did not permit 

 ships of war in the river, nor to fire salutes, "although it is all 

 very peaceful and done with the best intentions."^*" Ghing com- 

 plained, too, that Forbes had opened a letter sent by the former 

 through him to Gushing. Two days later he sent another letter, 

 explaining the non-appointment of an Imperial commissioner by 

 the ignorance of the government as to when Gushing would 

 arrive."* Gushing in a reply explained that Forbes had opened 



'^ Sen. Doc. 67, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 2. 



"° Sen. Doc. 87, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., p. 5. 



'*> Ibid., p. 7. April 1st. 



'" Ibid., p. ID, April 4tli. 



"' Ibid., p. 12. 



^" Sen. Doc. 67, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., pp. 13. 16. 



"^ Ibid., p. 20. 



