Editing First Opium War (section)

==== 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}}