Editing First Opium War (section)

=== Reaction in Britain ===

==== Parliamentary debates ====
Following the Chinese crackdown on the opium trade, discussion arose as to how Britain would respond, as the public in the United States and Britain had previously expressed outrage that Britain was supporting the opium trade.<ref name="Melancon-2003b">Glenn Melancon (2003). [https://books.google.com/books?id=V527VTyT29gC&pg=PA126 ''Britain's China Policy and the Opium Crisis: Balancing Drugs, Violence and National Honour, 1833–1840'']. Ashgate. p. 126.</ref> The East India and China Association of London argued that the opium trade was directly or indirectly sanctioned by the government, and as such they should compensate them for their losses. Elliot signed certificates guaranteeing payment for the surrendered opium with the assumption that China would pay for it. This provided legal basis for the merchants to demand an indemnity from the British government, which they could either force China to pay or pay for it from the British treasury. As the government had no funds to pay such indemnities, they favoured forcing China to pay since Elliot had provided them with plausible justification for a China Expedition. Many British citizens sympathised with the Chinese and wanted to halt the sale of opium, while others wanted to contain or regulate the international narcotics trade. However, a great deal of anger was expressed over the treatment of British diplomats and towards the protectionist trading policies of Qing China. The [[Whigs (British political party)|Whig]] controlled government in particular advocated war with China, and the pro-Whig press printed stories about Chinese "despotism and cruelty". This line of reasoning was primary defence for war with China.<ref name="Chen-2016">{{Cite book |last=Chen |first=Li |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mvHlCgAAQBAJ&q=First+opium+war&pg=PA212 |title=Chinese Law in Imperial Eyes: Sovereignty, Justice, and Transcultural Politics |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=2016 |isbn=978-0231540216}} pp. 221–228</ref>
Since August 1839, reports had been published in London newspapers about troubles at Guangzhou and the impending war with China. The Queen's Annual Address to the House of Lords on 16 January 1840 expressed the concern that "Events have happened in China which have occasioned an interruption of the commercial intercourse of my subjects with that country. I have given, and shall continue to give, the most serious attention to a matter so deeply affecting the interests of my subjects and the dignity of my Crown."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jon Bursey |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gcOIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PP192 |title=Captain Elliot and the Founding of Hong Kong: Pearl of the Orient |publisher=Grub Street|year=2018 |isbn=978-1526722577 |page=192}}</ref>

The Whig Melbourne Government was then in a weak political situation. It barely survived a motion of non-confidence on 31 January 1840 by a majority of 21. The Tories saw the China Question as an opportunity to beat the Government, and James Graham moved a motion on 7 April 1840 in the House of Commons, censuring the Government's "want of foresight and precaution" and "their neglect to furnish the superintendent at Guangzhou with powers and instructions" to deal with the opium trade.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bursey |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gcOIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PP192 |title=Captain Elliot |publisher=Grub Street |year=2018 |isbn=978-1526722577 |pages=192–194}}</ref> This was a deliberate move of the Tories to avoid the sensitive issues of war and opium trade and to obtain maximum support for the motion within the party.<ref>Fay (2000) p. 202.</ref> Calls for military action were met with mixed responses when the matter went before Parliament. Foreign Secretary [[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|Palmerston]], a politician known for his aggressive foreign policy and advocacy for free trade, led the pro war camp. Palmerston strongly believed that the destroyed opium should be considered property, not contraband, and as such reparations had to be made for its destruction. He justified military action by saying that no one could "say that he honestly believed the motive of the Chinese Government to have been the promotion of moral habits" and that the war was being fought to stem China's balance of payments deficit.<ref name="Melancon-2003b" />{{failed verification|date=November 2022}} After consulting with William Jardine, the foreign secretary drafted a letter to Prime Minister [[William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne|William Melbourne]] calling for a military response. Other merchants called for an opening of free trade with China, and it was commonly cited that the Chinese consumers were the driving factor of the opium trade. The periodic expulsion of British merchants from Guangzhou and the refusal of the Qing government to treat Britain as a diplomatic equal were seen as a slight to national pride.<ref name="Su-2020">{{Cite web |title=Justifiers of the British Opium Trade: Arguments by Parliament, Traders, and the Times Leading Up to the Opium War |url=https://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Su_SocSci_2008.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111230633/https://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Su_SocSci_2008.pdf |archive-date=11 November 2020 |access-date=23 September 2018}}</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2021}}

Few Tory or liberal politicians supported the war. [[Sir James Graham, 2nd Baronet|Sir James Graham]], [[Philip Stanhope, 5th Earl Stanhope|Lord Phillip Stanhope]], and [[William Ewart Gladstone]] headed the anti-war faction in Britain, and denounced the ethics of the opium trade.<ref name="Su-2020" /><ref name="Chen-2016" /> After three days of debate, the vote was taken on Graham's motion on 9 April 1840, which was defeated by a majority of only 9 votes (262 votes for vs 271 votes against ). The Tories in the House of Commons thus failed to deter the Government from proceeding with the war and stop the British warships already on their way to China. The House of Commons agreed on 27 July 1840 to a resolution of granting £173,442 for the expenses of the expedition to China, long after the war with China had broken out.<ref name="Su-2020" />{{failed verification|date=November 2022}}<ref name="Chen-2016" />{{failed verification|date=November 2022}}

==== Cabinet Decision and Palmerston letters ====
Under strong pressure and lobbying from various trade and manufacturer associations, the [[Whigs (British political party)|Whig]] cabinet under Prime Minister [[William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne|Melbourne]] decided on 1 October 1839 to send an expedition to China.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rebecca Berens Matzke |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xkZeKCdl0f0C&pg=PA112 |title=Deterrence Through Strength: British Naval Power and Foreign Policy Under Pax Britannica |publisher=U of Nebraska Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0803235144 |pages=108–112}}</ref> War preparations then began.

In early November 1839, Palmerston instructed Auckland, Governor General of India, to prepare military forces for deployment in China. On 20 February 1840 Palmerston (who remained unaware of the First Battle of Chuenpi in November 1839) drafted two letters detailing the British response to the situation in China. One letter was addressed to the Elliots, the other to the Daoguang Emperor and the Qing government. The letter to the emperor informed China that Great Britain had sent a military expeditionary force to the Chinese coast.<ref name="PalmerstonA">{{Cite web |title=Palmerston to Emperor – Feb, 1840 {{!}} China's external relations – a history |url=http://www.chinaforeignrelations.net/node/247 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170801031638/http://www.chinaforeignrelations.net/node/247 |archive-date=1 August 2017 |access-date=20 July 2017 |website=www.chinaforeignrelations.net |language=en}}</ref> In the letter, Palmerston stated that,

<blockquote>These measures of hostility on the part of Great Britain against China are not only justified, but even rendered absolutely necessary, by the outrages which have been committed by the Chinese Authorities against British officers and Subjects, and these hostilities will not cease, until a satisfactory arrangement shall have been made by the Chinese Government.<ref name="PalmerstonA" />{{dead link|date=September 2021}}</blockquote>

In his letter to the Elliots, Palmerston instructed the commanders to set up a blockade of the Pearl River and forward to a Chinese official the letter from Palmerston addressing the Chinese emperor. They were to then capture the Zhoushan Islands, blockade the mouth of the Yangtze River, start negotiations with Qing officials, and finally sail the fleet into the [[Bohai Sea]], where they would send another copy of the aforementioned letter to Beijing.<ref name="PalmerstonB">{{Cite web |title=Palmerston to Elliots – Feb, 1840 {{!}} China's external relations – a history |url=http://www.chinaforeignrelations.net/node/248 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809035901/http://www.chinaforeignrelations.net/node/248 |archive-date=9 August 2017 |access-date=20 July 2017 |website=www.chinaforeignrelations.net |language=en}}</ref>  Palmerston also issued a list of objectives that the British government wanted accomplished, with said objectives being:{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}
* Demand to be treated with the respect due to a royal envoy by the Qing authorities.
* Secure the right of the British superintendent to administer justice to British subjects in China.
* Seek recompense for destroyed British property.
* Gain most favoured trading status with the Chinese government.
* Request the right for foreigners to safely inhabit and own private property in China.
* Ensure that, if contraband is seized in accordance with Chinese law, no harm comes to the person(s) of British subjects carrying illicit goods in China.
* End the system by which British merchants are restricted to trading solely in Guangzhou.
* Ask that the cities of Guangzhou, Amoy, Shanghai, Ningbo, and the province of northern Formosa be freely opened to trade from all foreign powers.
* Secure islands along the Chinese coast that can be easily defended and provisioned, or exchange captured islands for favourable trading terms.
Lord Palmerston left it to Superintendent Elliot's discretion as to how these objectives would be fulfilled, but noted that while negotiation would be a preferable outcome, he did not trust that diplomacy would succeed, writing;

<blockquote>To sum up in a few words the result of this Instruction, you will see, from what I have stated, that the British Government demands from that of China satisfaction for the past and security for the future; and does not choose to trust to negotiation for obtaining either of these things; but has sent out a Naval and Military Force with orders to begin at once to take the Measures necessary for attaining the object in view.<ref name="PalmerstonB" />{{Dead link|date=September 2021}}</blockquote>