SO, in the name of national honour, Britain went to war with China in 1840. This war is rightly called the Opium War, for it was fought and won for the right of forcing opium on China.*
China could do little against the British fleet which blockaded Canton and other places. After two years she was forced to submit, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking laid down that five ports were to be opened to foreign trade, which meant especially the opium trade then. These five ports were Canton, Shanghai, Amoy, Ningpo, and Foochow.* They were called the “treaty ports”. Britain also took possession of the island of Hong Kong, near Canton, and extorted a large sum of money as compensation for the opium that had been destroyed, and for the costs of the war which she had forced on China.
Thus the British achieved the victory of opium. The Chinese Emperor* made a personal appeal to Queen Victoria, England’s Queen at the time, pointing out with all courtesy the terrible effects of the opium trade which was now forced on China. There was no reply from the Queen.*
abridged
* With due respect to Mr Nehru, this war was never really about opium: for better or worse, it was about exclusive access to China’s internal market and (if contemporary critic Richard Cobden was right) doing down Russia. On September 23rd, 1842, Lord Stanley advised the Queen of the Treaty of Nanking and its benefits. “In China a termination has been put to the effusion of blood by the signature of a treaty which has placed your Majesty’s dominions on a footing never recognised in favour of any foreign Power — a footing of perfect equality with the Chinese Empire; which has obtained large indemnity for the past, and ample security for the future, and which has opened to British enterprise the commerce of China to an extent which it is almost impossible to anticipate.” There is no mention of opium in the letter.
* Nowadays, Foochow is usually given as Fuzhou.
* The Daoguang Emperor (1782-1850) of the Qing dynasty reigned from 1820 to 1850. Nehru draws our attention to the contrast between the Daoguang Emperor’s courteous plea and the quaint communiqué of empty threats and haughty titles which the Qianlong Emperor despatched to King George III following the Macartney embassy to China in 1792-93. See ‘Tremblingly Obey!’.
* The Prime Minister when the war opened was William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, who held office in 1834 and in 1835-41; at the time of the Treaty of Nanking, it was Sir Robert Peel, who held office in 1834-35 and 1841-46. Support for the Government was slim: on April 8th, 1840, Lord John Russell informed the Queen that a motion censuring the policy towards China had failed by only nine votes, and the following day complained to her that “Mr Gladstone said the Chinese had a right to poison the wells to keep away the English!”. In fact, what Gladstone had said was that although the Chinese had not gone so far as to poison their wells, “they had a right to drive you from their coasts on account of your obstinacy in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic.” Lord Stanley’s letter of 1842, celebrating the Treaty of Nanking, reveals how the whole matter was presented to the Queen as a military, diplomatic and trade triumph.