Lucy Moore

Professor Marcotte

Modern Asian History

September 10, 2018

“Lord Palmerston’s Declaration of War”

During the 18th and 19th centuries, China experienced a trade crisis compounded by a

devastating opium crisis. England, China’s primary trading partner, flooded the Chinese market

with opium in order to balance out British demand for tea, which China supplied. In the 1830s,

government official Lin Zexu began to clamp down on the opium trade. While Lord Palmerston,

the foreign minister, was originally hesitant to start a trade war with China, he eventually

relented after lobbying from Manchester industrialists. In 1840, Palmerston wrote a letter to the

Chinese government informing them that the British government could no longer tolerate its ban

on the opium trade. “Declaration” is an important document as it showcases the British imperial

mindset. Palmerston portrayed British traders as law abiding victims of Chinese trade policy and

the Chinese government as arrogant, xenophobic, and violating its own trade laws.

Palmerston began his letter by discussing the trade history of China and England. He

stressed the “justice and good faith of the Emperor” (Palmerston, 2). By stressing the Emperor’s

good faith, Palmerston was probably trying to make him feel less offended about the declaration

of war. He also emphasized the “good faith of the Chinese government” (Palmerston, 2),

implying that the British and Chinese government had an agreement that both sides adhered to.

Palmerston used legal arguments to claim that since Chinese traders in Canton allowed

opium in the country in the first place, the Chinese government was in fact violating its own laws
against the import of opium and thus responsible for the opium epidemic. Additionally, he

claimed that the Chinese government was being hypocritical by focusing on the “transgressions

of Foreigners” (i.e. British opium traders) but ignoring the “transgressions of its own officers”

(Palmerston, 3). Earlier, he stated that the law “should be applied impartially, or not at all”. Thus,

the British government was entirely justified in its trade war, as the Chinese government not only

violated the rights of British citizens, but even violated its own laws. He even claimed that the

law “was allowed to sleep as a dead letter” (Palmerston, 4) and was in essence, a defunct law.

Lord Palmerston’s declaration of war was interesting in what he omitted. He failed to

mention that the Chinese government had ample reason to be concerned about the spread of

opium, and focused on Chinese government corruption while ignoring that the British merchants

broke the law by selling opium even after it was banned. He probably relied on a selective

reading of Chinese trade laws and British trade laws in order to argue his point. He claimed that

the government had learned about the mistreatment of British traders, but did not mention where

his sources came from.

While Palmerston’s declaration was not meant to be a public document, it is nonetheless

an intriguing document for those interested in Chinese-British relations, imperialism in China, or

the history of drugs. Nonetheless, it should not be taken as the only source on Chinese-British

trade during that period, as Palmerston interpreted Chinese law in order to serve British needs

and did not list his sources about the treatment of Chinese traders.