In October 1860, during the Second Opium War, Britain’s high commissioner and plenipotentiary in China, the Earl of Elgin, ordered his troops, despite French objections, to raze Beijing’s Old Summer Palace (Yuanmingyuan) to the ground. 

The destruction took three days, but not before Anglo-French troops had thoroughly pillaged it. Many of the stolen relics were sent overseas, and can still be found in national museums and private collections.

The destruction of the iconic palace, famed for its architecture, paintings, treasures, gardens and landscapes, ranks as one of history’s worst acts of cultural vandalism, and it was not only the Chinese who were appalled.

In his Expedition de Chine, the French writer Victor Hugo likened the Anglo-French despoilers to “two robbers breaking into a museum. One has looted, the other has burned”. In the wake of their destruction, they “came back to Europe, laughing hand-in-hand”. He expressed the hope that one day France would recognize its guilt and return what it had stolen to China, a process that has yet to get underway.

Although, in 2015, France returned 32 gold ornaments from its Musee Guimet, taken from a tomb in Gansu province and dating back 3,000 years, the move was controversial. Whereas Duan Yong, the then-secretary of the Museum and Social Heritage Office of the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, said he hoped the return would “provide experience when we recover other heritage items in the future”, things have not developed that way. As French law prevents museums from surrendering items to foreign nations, no other significant cultural repatriations have ensued.

In the 110 years between the First Opium War of 1839-42, and the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, historians estimate that China lost millions of artifacts, many now in private hands. Wars apart, there was a significant wave of looting in the late 19th century, when exploration teams from Europe and the US visited western China, and removed objects from sparsely populated but culturally rich areas, including the caves of Dunhuang, Gansu province. The Japanese also did their fair share of cultural plundering during their occupation of northern China in the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, UNESCO recently estimated that about 1.6 million Chinese relics are in the possession of 47 museums worldwide, including about 1 million plundered from the Old Summer Palace. Chinese antiquarians estimate that over 10 times that number is in the hands of private collectors.

Although items from the Old Summer Palace can be found in various UK museums, including the Royal Collection, the Royal Engineers Museum, and the Wallace Collection, the British Museum possesses the West’s biggest collection of Chinese antiquities, spanning the Neolithic age to present times.

It has about 23,000 items, including antiques from the Tang Dynasty (618-907), Shang Dynasty (circa 16th century-11th century BC) and Zhou Dynasty (circa 11th century-256 BC), and one of its halls (33) is largely dedicated to displaying some of them, including jade, porcelain, prints, bronzes and early silk paintings. They include a reproduction of the scroll Admonitions of the Instructress to the Court Ladies, painted by Gu Kaizhi, and highly esteemed by art historians (it bears an inscription by the Qianlong emperor).

In a microcosm, the museum’s collection represents the best of Chinese civilization. Indeed, it is touching to see Chinese tourists reverentially entering Hall 33, some dressed for the occasion, as if it were a shrine.

Although the British Museum has sometimes collaborated with China on cultural projects, it has always set limits. In 2006, for example, it loaned 272 of its most precious artifacts to China, none of which was Chinese. Even if the museum wanted to return objects to China, the British Museum Act 1963 makes it very difficult for it to do so, and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, emphasized in March there were “no plans to change” the law.

Apart from Chinese artifacts, the British Museum contains an estimated 8 million items from around the world, many pillaged during the imperial era. Some of the original owners, however, are dissatisfied with this situation, and are seeking their restitution. Whereas, for example, Ethiopia has requested the return of its Tabots (sacred tablets), and Greece wants its Parthenon Sculptures (Elgin Marbles) back, Nigeria has sought its Benin Bronzes.

In resisting these demands, the UK has, legalities apart, always argued the British Museum is the safest place in the world for them to be.

In August, however, a scandal gripped the museum, and this triggered fresh demands for the return of stolen artifacts. It was discovered that approximately 2,000 items, worth millions of pounds, were unaccounted for, and some had turned up on eBay. The museum said it had dismissed an employee after items were found to be “missing, stolen or damaged”, and it is now in shock.

The missing items included gold jewelry, semi-precious stones and glass, and items over 3,500 years old. However, because of gaps in the museum’s inventory, the true scale of the losses may never be known, and the items identified as missing could be the tip of the iceberg. When a storeroom believed to contain 942 items from the 18th century was opened, only seven objects were inside.

The news prompted Greece’s culture minister, Lina Mendoni, to say it “reinforces the permanent and just demand of our country for the definitive return” of the Parthenon Sculptures.

Although the Chinese authorities have not publicly pronounced on the thefts, they cannot be happy if Chinese artifacts have been endangered or gone missing. On Aug 28, in an editorial, the Global Times pointed out it was a myth to claim that “foreign cultural objects are better protected in the British Museum”. It said, “We formally request the British Museum to return all Chinese cultural relics acquired through improper channels free of charge.” It added that the UK should “pay back its own historical debts and take the initiative to contact and discuss with the countries that have suffered from its colonial infringements on how to return the historical loot as soon as possible”.

Although China has not sought reparations from the imperial powers for the wrongs of the past, this does not mean its grievances are other than acute. It can never forget, for example, the killings by their armies (approximately 18,000 Chinese perished in the First Opium War alone), the horrors of the opium trade (90 million Chinese were addicted by the late 19th century), or the theft of national treasures.

It may well be that China is happy for some of its treasures to remain in foreign museums, as where it already has identical objects at home, perhaps of superior quality. There is always great interest in Chinese culture in other countries, and the presence of artifacts can perform an ambassadorial role by promoting China.

There is, moreover, always scope for items to be loaned to the British Museum. Its just-concluded China’s Hidden Century (1796-1912) exhibition, which lasted for five months, showcased an amazing array of loaned antiquities (some from Hong Kong), and was a huge success.

It is, therefore, now necessary for the British Museum to identify how its Chinese artifacts were acquired, and, if they were pillaged or otherwise obtained through underhand dealing, to negotiate their return with Beijing. China now has the facilities necessary for their upkeep, and they will also be safer than they are in London.

The return of artifacts taken when China was weak will not only be indicative of its revival, but will also be a sign of the better relations that the British government now claims to be seeking with Beijing.  

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.