Justifiers of the British Opium Trade: Arguments by Parliament, Traders, and the Times Leading Up to the Opium War
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SURJ
Justifiers of the British Opium Trade: anyway, so the British could
not be held morally accountable
Arguments by Parliament, Traders, and the for responding to consumer
demand. Even if they sanctioned
Times Leading Up to the Opium War themselves, the Chinese would not
stop purchasing opium, and other
Christine Su1 foreign merchants would take their
profits.
In the events leading up to the Opium War, bilateral sovereignty and diplomacy were
flouted in favor of British economic imperialism. Using sources from the British Parliament, 2. Government-Sanctioned Property
London Times, and Canton opium traders to explain arguments from both the justifiers Rights: Opium merchants had
and the opposition to the smuggling trade in the years leading up to 1840, this paper operated under the unofficial
examines the relevance of imperial prestige and ethnocentricity in political debates over approval of the British government
British foreign policy in the mid-nineteenth century. for decades without sanction, and
could not be reasonably expected
War in Defense of Drugs justify their roles in the opium trade, to assume anything other than
Unlawful smuggling of opium and what did these reasons show about full protection of their cargo as
had been taking place in Chinese ports imperialist tendencies towards China property. They demanded payment
for over a century when Commissioner in the nineteenth century? for their lost cargo, either from the
Lin Zexu was appointed in 1839 to This paper will first outline a Treasury or by force from the Qing
eradicate the opium trade in Canton, short history of the events leading up to government.
but official tensions between the Qing the 1840 military expedition, looking
government and British representatives at primary sources from top officials 3. Threat of Economic Upheaval:
escalated soon after Lin demonstrated and merchants involved in the dispute. Opium was one of the most
serious intent to fulfill his official It will then examine the arguments lucrative exports in the British
duties. Following several unsuccessful in support of the expedition, given trading empire, and India depended
edicts to ban the imports 1839, Lin by British traders in Canton and the on supplying opium to Canton
blockaded the Canton port, keeping Indian opium merchants who supplied merchants to sustain its economy. A
foreign merchants under house arrest their cargo. Next, it will analyze the ban on opium would cripple Indian
until they surrendered their chests of coverage of these issues in the London trade and dry up a crucial source of
opium for destruction. British forces, Times throughout this period. The colonial revenue, imposing a heavy
directed by Foreign Secretary Lord Times was by far the most widely Treasury or taxpayer burden on
Palmerston, responded by sending read newspaper in the 1840s, with a Britain to support India’s economic
a military expedition to Canton circulation of 38,100 (its five major stability.
demanding reparations for the insult rivals only reached a combined total
to British honor and £2 million loss of of 18,000).1 Finally, it will summarize 4. British Honor and Prestige: The
property in opium chests. These events Parliament’s debates on the war with ignominy of British citizens having
set off the first Opium War in 1840. China, which took place in April of to suffer deprivation of their liberties
What were the justifications 1840. This exploration of the trade under Lin’s house arrest incensed
used by officials and merchants for the incentives, public news coverage, and many Englishmen. Restoring the
opium trade in China, and how did they government justifications of the opium prestige of the Crown in Canton,
grapple with the moral implications of trade will provide several insights as well as redressing the insults
declaring war to defend illicit sales of on the British Empire’s attitudes and suffered by British traders, were
an poisonous drug in a country which approaches to economic imperialism in the primary reasons Palmerston
forbade its importation? Members of overseas trade. used to justify the expedition.
the British Parliament, the East India To summarize briefly, the
Company, and British merchants who justifications for military action 5. Arrogance of the Chinese:
traded opium in Chinese ports were all in response to Lin’s destruction of Numerous British accounts of Lin
complicit in the sale of an addictive opium chests fall under several broad and the Qing government expressed
substance, in defiance of the Qing’s categories: dissatisfaction at the conceited and
efforts to stop it. How did these groups overbearing rhetoric in Lin’s edicts
1. Laws of the Free Market: The and letters, which treated Britain as
1Stanford University
Chinese wanted to buy the opium an inferior power and did not pay
45Social Sciences
full tribute to the British Crown’s within three days of giving notice have heard that the smoking
supremacy in the global order. by official edict, he shut down trade of opium is very strictly
Many merchants called on Britain in Canton, closed the customs office forbidden by your country...
to demonstrate its naval power in and walled the foreign traders in the Since it is not permitted to do
full force, teaching the ‘barbarians’ port’s factories until they surrendered harm to your own country, then
a lesson and dispelling Chinese all their opium cargo. Under pressure even less should you let it be
notions of racial superiority.2 from the surrounding military forces, passed on to the harm of other
Elliot capitulated and coordinated countries—how much less to
Subsequent sections will highlight these efforts, thus convincing Lin that China.9
these elements while studying the his previous protests about a lack of
various source sets of merchant authority over the merchants were Lin accused the British who condoned
correspondence, public news, and nonsense. Thousands of chests of opium the opium trade as “careful of [their]
Parliamentary debate. The next section were handed over by the merchants for own lives, but careless of the lives
will briefly sketch the history of official Lin and destroyed. of other people, indifferent in [their]
escalation leading up to Britain’s In April 1839, the blockade greed for gain to the harm [they did] to
military expedition to Canton. was lifted and Lin commanded that others. Such conduct [was] repugnant
bonds be signed by all merchants that to human feeling, and at variance
History and Pre-1840 Imperialist they would no longer smuggle opium, with the Way of Heaven.”10 Lin had
Attitudes on pain of execution if found with the attempted to send a previous letter in
In the decade before the war, contraband.7 This called into question 1839, which was rejected by Elliot on
the British sent high-ranking diplomats the issue of jurisdiction, as the British the grounds of addressing the Queen
such as Lord Napier as envoys to citizens refused to be subject to what on equal diplomatic terms. His second
negotiate around the unfavorable they regarded as barbaric Chinese law. letter reached England, but was rejected
Canton Trade laws and “open up” This dilemma also drew in the broader by Palmerston in the Foreign Office,
Chinese ports to British trade. From question of whether the British regarded because Captain Warner had signed
1834 onwards, the Qing government Chinese law as legitimate constraints Lin’s bond. The letter never reached
itself debated the legalization of opium, on imperial trade interests at all, since the Queen or anyone in the British
but ultimately decided against it and the entire opium trade itself had flouted government.
appointed Commissioner Lin Zexu to Chinese laws for decades. It was evident from these
eliminate the trade in China completely. After meeting with William events that to some extent, Palmerston
Lin’s diplomatic counterpart Jardine, the top opium trader in Canton, already regarded Chinese laws and
was Charles Elliot, British Chief Palmerston immediately wrote to the diplomats as subordinate to the Crown,
Superintendent of Trade in China, who Prime Minister, William Melbourne, and did not regard China as an equal
became involved in extraterritoriality to discuss a military expedition. One diplomatic counterpart with full legal
disputes and ultimately banned all historian, Brian Inglis, observed: rights within its territories. The issue,
trade with Guangzhou in 1839—the The way the questions were then, was which British interests (trade
final escalation before the war. put shows that Palmerston had revenues, legal jurisdiction, imperial
In 1837, the Qing Emperor already pre-judged the issue. prestige) would supersede its regard
issued several commands to The confiscated opium was not for Chinese laws enough to warrant
Superintendent Elliot to stop the opium contraband, it was ‘property.’ force to ensure compliance. Historian
traffic and remove ships which stored The merchants from whom it Harry G. Gelber counted “the future
contraband cargo.3 Elliot claimed that was taken were not smugglers, arrangement of China’s trade with the
he had neither the authority to stop they were ‘suffering parties.’8 outside world and…the question of
opium traffic from non-British ships, controlling China’s coasts and borders”
nor the means to regulate smugglers in The ethical disparities over opium among the factors that Palmerston took
addition to his oversight of regular trade.4 smuggling presented themselves most into consideration in going to war.11
Commissioner Lin Zexu was appointed clearly in the form of failed appeals These factors demonstrated that the
in 1839—a vigorous administrator with for cooperation from the Chinese side. war was not intended create an imperial
a strict reputation against corruption.5 In 1840, Lin wrote a letter to Queen relationship with China, but to validate
He was determined from the beginning Victoria, signed by the Emperor, which by force what was already implicitly
to stamp out opium trade, and saw was entrusted to Captain Warner of the assumed in practice.
Canton as a “complete cesspool of Thomas Coutts:
corruption.”6 Lin acted decisively— Where is your conscience? I
46SURJ
Opium Traders and the Imperial generated, and that it seemed “most commercial enterprise, honour,
Distance unjust to throw any blame or odium and good faith are known? 21
The merchants of Canton made attaching to the opium trade upon the
it an open secret that they had been merchants, who engaged in a business Other merchants sent reports
carrying cargoes of opium for decades, thus directly and indirectly sanctioned detailing the revenue that the opium
but staunchly avoided responsibility for by the highest authorities.”14 British trade brought annually to India, and
opium’s effects in China. They evaded merchants in Calcutta wrote to the forecasts of silver that would be lost
ethical complications by depicting Privy Council, arguing that the opium to the crown if it were halted. If the
themselves as agents of government- trade was both “eagerly sought after by opium trade dried up, “such was the
sanctioned free trade, distancing the Chinese people” and “fostered into dependence of the Indian economy on
themselves economically, culturally, its recent magnitude by every means their efforts that commerce in general
and politically from the iniquities of that ingenuity could devise on the part would come tumbling down in ruins…
the trade itself. William Jardine and of the British Government of India.”15 [having] a catastrophic effect on firms
his partner James Matheson owned They pointed out that the government in Britain which had trading interests
the company (Matheson Jardine) that “consulted on every occasion the wants in the east.” The silver bullion leaking
was the largest importer of opium and needs of Chinese consumers,” and out of Chinese coffers also purchased
into China. Jardine once wrote to a provided charts showing that roughly cargo to fuel Britain’s own national
missionary boarding his ship: 85% of the opium shipped out from addiction to tea. This elevation of the
We have no hesitation in Calcutta was dispatched directly in to worth of profit margin to lives, where
stating to you openly that China.16 The contraband sale of opium, the quality of life to a British subject
our principal reliance is on in the eyes of the traders, had always was more than the actual life of a
opium…[which] by many is “flourished through the connivance of Chinese addict, was only possible in
considered an immoral traffic, Government officers,” and any blame an imperialist mindset buffered by a
yet such traffic is so absolutely on the merchants would be shared by physical and cultural distance.
necessary to give any vessel a government agents as well.17 Richard Cobden, a critic of
reasonable chance of defraying One famous pamphlet British imperial expansion, tried to
her expenses, that we trust you circulated in 1840 was The Opium acknowledge positive outcomes to the
will have no objection…12 Question by literary talent Samuel opium business: “[i]n a modern world
Warren (to whom Matheson was a of investment and trade, China and
A pamphlet signed by “A British patron). In it, he argued that merchants Japan could not possibly be allowed
Merchant,” (most likely either Jardine could not be held accountable for the to remain isolated; and in any case,
or Matheson), argued that the sale of moral rights and wrongs of dealing free trade was the blood-brother of
opium was not immoral because “the the drug when the British government international peace, welfare and virtue,
people of China were only too willing to explicitly condoned the Company’s even of Christian advancement.”22 Yet
receive it. Surely, therefore, ‘no morale activities.18 Warren compared opium the Opium War expedition showed that
will be urged against it.’”13 Chinese to smuggled French brandy or lace:19 the mantra of economic imperialism
people were culturally different and Has any British merchant was above all to maintain favorable
therefore somehow culpable for their engaged in the opium trade trade relations for the empire, whether
addiction, or simply less immoral to ever fancied, or had reason to it was with a free country or one under
exploit through abusive transactions. fancy,--although carrying it on British control.
The “merchants of death” every moment under the eye,
also placed a political distance and paying tribute for it into The Public and British Honor in the
between themselves and their victims, the pocket of Government, that Times
offloading culpability to the British it was during these forty-three The British public had little
government and the Indian economy. years illegal, except in mere or no awareness of the events in
The Committee of the London East name?20…Do we venture to Canton until London newspapers
India and China Association submitted call them smugglers?...Are they began reporting events several months
a memorandum to Palmerston in not some of our most eminent after they took place. Palmerston did
1839, pointing out that Parliamentary British merchants—men whose not receive news of the March 1839
committees had enquired minimally names would command respect blockade until August, and the London
into the trade, with a full knowledge and confidence in Great Britain Times began reporting on the events
of the destination and content of cargo and in India—in short, in every at that time as well. British opinion
as well as the amount of revenue it quarter of the world where appeared to be split on the ethical issues,
47Social Sciences
and the opium trade was not generally their countrymen by the hands of the will hesitate for a moment in
a topic of great national concern. The brutal and vulgar Chinese barbarians. cleansing them, even if it be in
most salient matter seemed to be that Contrary to Lin’s mistaken belief, blood, from the stains which
the Chinese insulted British dignity opium was not illegal in Britain and was barbarian insolence has so
and pride by mistreating the expatriate commonly prescribed as a prescription deeply tarnished them?...Why
families during the blockade. In the drug, laudanum. Charming old ladies are there not seen and heard
debate over whether to go to war, both would take it nightly before bed, and there, by those incredulous and
sides of the public debate tried to claim it was seen as no worse than gin or vaunting barbarians, the glare
the high ground of regaining British tobacco. Lin, on the other hand, had and thunder of our artillery?29
honor and national prestige. committed an “unquestionable atrocity”
In August, 1839, the Times by blockading and then expelling British The paradigm shift on the ethical
focused on publicizing the factual countrymen by force, gravely insulting grounds for war were noted and
development of events in Canton, their honor and causing subjects of the adopted by the opposition. On April
and reprinted primary documents Queen to lose face abroad.25 25, 1840, the Times reported on a
forwarded from the Chinese Less than a week after the Freemasons’ meeting condemning
Repository, an merchant-funded first reports from Canton, the Times the war. The speakers attempted to
expatriate periodical from Canton. published another detailed, more shame the government for pursuing a
Presumably in an effort to show both sensational account of the blockade war that bungled “a question involving
sides of the controversy, the August 7th and events on the ground. The the honour of the British nation and
Times reprinted a merchant petition to Chinese forces were reportedly using our Christian character.”30 These
the Queen requesting compensation “intimidation” tactics, “threatening groups opposed the war using the same
for their lost property on the same the lives of the Hong merchants,” and language of maintaining British prestige
page as an edict from Commissioner “depriving the foreigners resident by not fighting, as well as the religious
Lin. The merchants pointed out the [there] of their liberty.”26 The story and moral high ground of converting
capital benefits derived from the opium included excerpts written by Elliot to more Chinese through goodwill instead
trade to the government, and appealed the Canton Press from March about of violence. These sentiments were
for a speedy redress of their violated the “dangerous, unprecedented, and also imperialist in themselves, as they
property rights.23 Lin, comparing the unexplained circumstance…imminent prioritized the reputation of British
great benefits of the tea trade to British hazard of life and property, and total honor and good reputation abroad. The
citizens to the great harm of opium disregard of honor and dignity” suffered moral question of selling deadly drugs
imports to Chinese consumers, argued by merchant families. Readers pieced to Chinese addicts in contravention of
that British conduct would “rouse[] together details from the scene, recalling jurisdictional law had been tabled and
indignation in every human heart, and from the last story “the threatening forgotten.
[was] utterly inexcusable in the eyes language of the High Commissioner…
of celestial reason.”24 This emotional of the most general application, and Skirting the Ethics: The Parliamentary
appeal was then followed by several dark and violent character.”27 Debates
haughty threats about how the great The subsequent forced After the Government sent
might of the Celestial empire, which expulsion of British families from an expedition to “obtain reparations
stretched for thousands of miles, would Macao did even more to stir public anger for the Insults and Injuries offered
put an end to British livelihoods. at the insult to British dignity. Readers to Her Majesty’s Superintendent and
Yet as the Times continued to were offended to find out about English Her Majesty’s subjects,” unconfirmed
report while events unfolded, a pattern women and children being “exposed to news reports of military operations
emerged of public attention on British dark and nameless insults and dangers began trickling back into London in
honor and prestige. The Times did at the hands of dirty Chinese ruffians.”28 early 1840. 31 By March, Palmerston
print features by one or two prominent Women were still placed on a Victorian had admitted to the expedition under
critics of opium, including an excerpt pedestal of innocence and purity, and repeated queries from the Opposition.
by Reverend Thelwall’s book Iniquities this above all galvanized Englishmen Arguments over the war took place
of the Opium Trade With China. to call for action. Many might have during three debates—all unsuccessful
Nevertheless, it seemed that the echoed Samuel Warren’s sentiments in motions to excoriate the government’s
British public was most aroused not The Opium Question: reasons and methods for going to war.
by the moralistic accounts of opium’s In the name of the dear glory On April 7, Sir Robert Peel moved
destructive effects in China, but by and honour of old England, to censure the Majority’s expedition.
the sensational ignominies suffered by where are the councils which This set off a three-day debate in the
48SURJ
House of Commons, which Palmerston Gladstone further accused the entire the crown.37 Melbourne agreed that
won 271 to 261. Sir James Graham British community of being involved “opium was probably less harmful than
then brought a motion to ban the trade, in the traffic, and even pointed out gin and anyway it was the Chinese who
which was again lost in the Commons. how merchants and officials alike had insisted on smoking it…unless one
In the House of Lords, Lord Stanhope been deceptive in saying they could do reduced demand, there was no point in
echoed the minority’s condemnation, nothing about it: “Does the Minister trying to strangle only one of several
but the ensuing debate split the not know that the opium smuggled into sources of supply.”38 Palmerston
opposition position so that he was China comes exclusively from British distanced the British culturally from
forced to withdraw his motion without ports, that it is from Bengal and through the sins of addiction, blaming the
calling for a vote. Bombay?...we require no preventive Chinese for opium demand. Why was
In all these debates, the topic service to put down this illegal traffic. it on the shoulders of the British to
of opium was exceedingly awkward We have only to stop the sailings of the consider “preserving the morals of the
as both sides tried to navigate around smuggling vessels…”34 In a career- Chinese people, who were disposed to
thorny ethical issues like protecting making speech, he claimed that “a buy what other people were disposed to
opium production in India and British war more unjust in its origins, a war sell them?”39
profits made from that revenue source. more calculated in its progress to cover The mantra of British imperial
The Opposition focused its attacks this country with permanent disgrace, prestige emerged clearly in these
on Government bungling its relations I do not know and I have not read debates. Sir G. Thomas Staunton
with Chinese officials and allowing of.”35 Gladstone also appealed to the cautioned the floor: “Parliament
misunderstandings to get this far, British sense of honor by rhetorically should remember that the entire British
but was not opposed to fighting the shaming the crown, calling the British Empire was founded on prestige. If
war itself. Even William Gladstone, flag a “pirate flag, to protect infamous they submitted to insults from China,
who eloquently denounced the moral traffic.”36 The fundamental hole in his British political ascendancy would
vicissitudes of the opium trade, reasoning was his omission of judgment collapse.”40 Thomas Macaulay, the
stopped short of demanding that the on the treatment and jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War, argued that
military operations in India come to British merchants in Canton. If his the Chinese government had the right
a halt.32 These omissions made the reasoning held true that opium trading to restrict opium but not to seize “our
debate focused ethnocentrically on was illegal piracy and that the Chinese innocent countrymen, and insult[]
the issue of the British countrymen’s had the jurisdictional right to enforce the Sovereign in the person of her
honor. Moreover, the lack of minority laws on their own coasts, there would representative.” Britain was going to
resistance to the war itself undercut the be no reason to not allow them to expel war so that its subjects could “look with
opposition’s claims to the moral high criminals from their territories. By confidence on the victorious flag which
ground and revealed the underlying refusing to pass judgment on the value was hoisted over them, which reminded
imperial motive behind both sides. of “national honor,” he left the debate them that they belonged to a country
Why would the opposition allow a war open to the majority to emphasize unaccustomed to defeat, to submission
if they truly believed that the Chinese the inherently greater value of British or to shame…surrounded as they were
had the moral and legal right to try to subjects’ offended dignity, which by enemies, and separated by great
stop the immoral opium trade, and that outweighed considerations of Chinese oceans and continents from all help, not
the British Government should have lives or legal authority. a hair of their heads would be harmed
cooperated more fully with them? Along the majority bench, by impunity…”41 The war in Canton
In the House of Commons, familiar themes of free trade incentives, was essentially a signaling ground
speakers in the minority tried to unalterable addiction, and national for British supremacy, to formally
occupy the moral high ground, but prestige emerged in the speeches. assert royal control over the resources
fell short of trying to put a halt to In a three-hour opening speech, Sir of an region informally controlled
the expedition even as they called it James Graham reasoned that it would by economic imperialism, and to
an unjust war. Sidney Herbert said be unfair to bar British traders alone demonstrate the empire’s treatment
that Britain was “contending with an from participating in the lucrative of subordinate races who imagined
enemy whose cause of quarrel is better business of selling opium, while other themselves equal to the Crown.
than [its] own, and that it was “a war opium importers such as the Americans Palmerston attempted to place
without just cause” to “maintain a trade reaped the benefits. They would win the expedition in a less exploitative
resting on unsound principles, and to Britain’s market share in the opium international context. In his closing
justify proceedings which [were] a business, and increase their profits by speech, he argued that Lin “put down
disgrace to the British flag.”33 William millions that would otherwise go to the opium trade by acts of arbitrary
49Social Sciences SURJ
authority against British merchants—a Parliamentary officials, the justification May 19, 1836; pg. 6; Issue 16107;
course totally at variance with for war was to redeem the British Col C.
British law, totally at variance with reputation and prestige abroad, which Warren, Samuel, Esq., F.R. S. The Opium
international law…”42 The British were had been sullied by Commissioner Question. London: James
Ridgway,1840.
setting things right. It was ironic that Lin’s audacious treatment of English
he appealed to international law, British subjects as criminals. The opposition’s
Secondary Sources
jurisdiction and sovereignty, because supposed neutrality on China’s anti- Chang, Hsin-pao. Commissioner Lin and the
the whole incident arose precisely opium policies and the ethics of the Opium War. Cambridge: Harvard
because the same considerations were opium trade met with an inherent University Press, 1964.
not afforded to the Chinese. His final contradiction when they allowed a war Gelber, Harry G.. Opium, Soldiers and
proposal further eroded the ground for that defended the opium merchants Evangelicals: Britain’s 1840-42 War
international sovereignty: “The actions as victims instead of criminals. with China, and its Afermath. New
of the Chinese Commissioner had been Ultimately, both the justifiers and the York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
‘unjust and no better than robbery’. A opposition to the Opium War opted Hanes III, W. Travis and Frank Sanello. Opium
Wars: The Addiction of One Empire
joint British, American, and French for an ethnocentric presumption in the
and the Corruption of Another.
naval force should be stationed on the interests of their countrymen and the
Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, Inc.,
Chinese coast to look after Western British reputation abroad—revealing 2002.
interests.”43 However thinly masked the just how deeply the vein of economic Inglis, Brian. The Opium War. London: Hodder
imperial motives, they were shared by a imperialism was rooted in nineteenth- and Stoughton, 1976.
majority of the British Parliament. The century British consciousness. Wong, J.W.. Deadly Dreams : Opium,
Opium War forced open Chinese ports Imperialism, and the Arrow War
and crippled the Qing government’s Primary Sources (1856-1860) in China. Cambridge:
legitimacy, allowing the British to Chinese Repository, The. Published in Canton, Cambridge University Press,
demand concession of China’s coastal 1832-1849. 1998.
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vols. 39-55, Xu Naiji. “Memorial to the emperor for the
territories and economic resources
indexed. 1838-1840. legalization of opium.” July 1836. In
to the imperial economy for the next
--. Vol. 43. April 7-10, 1840. House of Commons Chinese Repository Vol. 5, trans.J.
century. debate on the War with China. R. Morrision. London, 1836.
King, C. W.. “The Opium Crisis. A Letter to
Conclusion Charles Elliot, Esq. By an American Endnotes
The relationship between Merchant in Canton. King.” Letter. 1 Harry G. Gelber. Opium, Soldiers
British officials and the Qing London, 1839. and Evangelicals: Britain’s 1840-42 War With
government was notable in that the Thelwall, Rev. A.S., M.A., of Trinity College, China, and Its Aftermath. New York: Palgrave
British were dealing with a fully-formed Cambridge. The Iniquities of the MacMillan, 2004, p. 225.
government of a foreign state rather Opium Trade with China, &c. London, 2 See also Gelber, p. 90.
1839. 3 Ibid., p. 51.
than a colony of a protectorate which
Times, The. London: 1838-1842. 4 Ibid., p. 52.
they already controlled. Yet the British
--. “China. The following are the penalties 5 Ibid., p. 60.
government did not view China as a for buying and smoking opium…” 6 Ibid., p. 61.
real government and diplomatic equal, Thursday, Oct 04, 1838; pg. 8; Issue 7 Ibid., p 62-69. See also Brian
but rather as an informal colony whose 16851; Col A. Inglis. The Opium War. London: Hodder and
laws were not to be taken seriously --. “Iniquities of the Opium Trade With China. Stoughton, 1976, p. 118-120.
and whose demands were an affront From The Rev. Mr. Thelwall’s Book 8 Inglis, p. 125.
to the Crown. For opium merchants On That Subject.” Friday, May 24, 9 Commissioner Lin’s letter to
in Canton, the laws were made to 1839; pg. 5; Issue 17050; Col F. Queen Victoria, Jan. 15, 1840. Qtd. in Gerber,
be flouted, and the British economic --. “Iniquities of the Opium Trade with China.” p 77. See also reprint on CUNY Department
Thursday, Aug 15, 1839; pg. 6; Issue of History, accessed 12 Dec 2007. ;
to the human suffering inflicted by the
--. “Opium Trade With China.” Wednesday, Aug see also Brian Inglis. The Opium War. London:
opium trade. This was made easier 07, 1839; pg. 7; Issue 17114; Col A. Hodder and Stoughton, 1976, p.118.
by the cultural distancing tactic of --. “Proceedings At Canton Relative To The 10 Ibid., qtd. at Inglis 118.
devaluing the lives of Chinese addicts, Trade In Opium.” Tuesday, Aug 13, 11 Gelber, p. 86.
as well as the abdication of culpability 1839; pg. 6; Issue 17119; Col A. 12 William Jardine. Letter to Dr Charles
to instead blame British government --. “Proposed Tariff On Opium.” Saturday, Jan Gutzlaff, 1830. Qtd. in Inglis p. 81.
agents, who had condoned the trade 28, 1837; pg. 2; Issue 16325; Col E. 13 “A British Merchant,” Chinese
for decades. For the British public and --. “The Opium Trade With China.” Thursday, Repository, Dec 1833. Qtd. in Inglis p. 92.
50SURJ
14 Qtd. in Gelber, p. 85. 80.
15 “Opium Trade With China.” The 38 Hansard,
Times, Monday, Sep 30, 1839; pg. 3; Issue 39 Hansard, cols. 925-48. See also
17160; col F. Hanes and Sanello, p. 79; Gelber, p. 100.
16 Ibid., calculations derived from charts 40 Ibid., col. 742. See also Gelber, p.
provided. 95.
17 Ibid. 41 Ibid., col. 719.
18 Samuel Warren, Esq., F.R. S. The 42 Ibid., see also Gelber, p. 100.
Opium Question. London: James Ridgway, 43
1840. See also Inglis, p. 132-133. Ibid. http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&
19 Ibid., p. 60, 82. disp=emb&view=att&th=119a66a612397a8f
20 Ibid. http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=e
21 Ibid., p. 77. mb&view=att&th=119a66a612397a8f
22 Ibid., p. 48.
23 “Opium Trade with China.” The
Times, Wednesday, Aug 7, 1839; pg. 7; Issue
17114; col A.
24 Ibid.
25 Gelber, p. 87-89.
26 “Proceedings at Canton Relative to
the Trade in Opium.” The Times, 13 Aug 1839.
27 “Public Notice to British Subjects.”
The Times, 13 Aug 1839.
28 Gelber, p. 85.
29 Warren, p. 116.
30 “Opium War With China.” The Times,
Saturday, Apr 25, 1840; pg. 5; Issue 17341; col
D
31 Gelber, p. 91.
32 “On the War with China.” Hansard
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,
7-9 April 1840, Vol. 43. See also W. Travis
Hanes III and Frank Sanello. Opium Wars: The
Addiction of One Empire and the Corruption
of Another. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, Inc.,
2002, p. 78-83.
33 Gelber, p. 96.
34 “On the War with China.” Hansard
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons,
7-9 April 1840, Vol. 43, col. 673-948. See
also W. Travis Hanes III and Frank Sanello.
Opium Wars: The Addiction of One Empire
and the Corruption of Another. Naperville, Ill.:
Sourcebooks, Inc., 2002, p. 78-83.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., see also Hanes and Sanello, p.
Christine Su is a senior majoring in Political Science with a minor in British History. As a
junior, she completed an honors thesis in international security studies on the effectiveness of British
counterterrorism policies at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). She is
president of the Stanford Debate Society and the Stanford Chamber Chorale, and VP of the Forum for
Chinese/American Exchange at Stanford (FACES). Her academic interests include British imperial-
ism and China's modernizing business and legal infrastructure. After graduation, she will be joining
McKinsey & Company as a Business Analyst in their Hong Kong office.
51You can also read
