Page 270 - Merchants and Mandarins China Trade Era

256.

William S. Wetmore of Wetmore & Co. The entire Chamber con­

vened two days later to devise an answer to the Commissioner's

demands for the opium. Virtually all residents agreed they

could not allow their shipments to be destroyed. The Chamber

followed the position of Russell & Co. that "we cannot of

course consent to give away the property of our constituents."

But the residents did pledge that they would discontinue any
74
connection wit t . d This response, communica-
.
. h h e opium tra e.
ted through the Hong merchants, did not satisfy Lin Tse-hsu.

He informed the Hong merchants they had twenty-four hours in

which to persuade the foreign merchants to deliver all their

opium. If unsuccessful, two of the Hong merchants would suffer

decapitation. Until this point the residents continued to

believe they would be able to comply with Lin's edict by

sending away the opium vessels or, at most, burning a small
portion of the drug in public. The Hong merchants informed

the foreigners of their predicament and asked for support.

Although three English merchants (large opium dealers) Lancelot

Dent, William Bell, and George T. Braine strongly opposed

changing their stand, the majority led by John C. Green

decided to offer a thousand chests to the Commissioner. This

74
Journal of R.B. Forbes, Mar. 19, 1939, Forbes Family
MSS. On March 25 the residents disavowed any further partici­
pation in the opium trade. This pledge was signed by forty­
two commercial establishments: sixteen English, twenty-three
Par see and three American (Rus,sell & Co., Wetmore & Co., Russell,
Sturgis & Co.). Consular Despatches: Canton, P.W. Snow, Mar.
25, 1839.