Peyrefitte contends that the frustration of the mission and the stand-off in relations between Great Britain and China over diplomatic and audience ritual was caused by the ignorant intransigence and cultural conceit of the imperial court.
Peyrefitte used his official connections to gain access to archives in Beijing's Palace Museum and organized a team of researchers to explore them.
Jane Kate Leonard writing in the American Historical Review was critical, concluding that the book was "a pretentious and undigested work of limited antiquarian interest.
The University of Chicago historian James L. Hevia published a revisionist study which specifically argued that Peyrefitte and others of the "free trade" interpretation overemphasized economic motives and suggested instead that the British and the Manchu empires both were expanding and both were as much concerned with "ritual" (in the sense of cultural forms) as with profits as such.
[4] Princeton University scholar Benjamin A. Elman commented that Peyrefitte painted a "dark picture" of China and recommended that readers consult other works as a corrective.