12
الرقاب
we wanted might have been got, if it had not been for the unaccountably strange conduct of Charles Elliot - not Admiral Elliot, for he was obliged to come away from ill-health who completely disobeyed his instructions and tried to get the lowest terms he could......Albert is so much amused at my having got the Island of Hong Kong...' (author's italics).
Waley compares Lin and Elliot, the opponents in the opium dispute, and finds similarities; for instance, both were civil servants carrying out tasks imposed on them from above, both being cashiered for failing to fulfil these tasks. Strangely, Waley does not mention what is perhaps the most significant similarity: they both detested the opium trade. Elliot saw it as a disgrace and a sin and the blackest stain on the British character. It has even been suggested that Elliot, under instructions to protect the opium traders - a task he resented - deliberately disobeyed his orders and demanded less from the Chinese than the Government at home had ordered him to do.
21
Lin was dismissed in late 1840. He left Guangzhou in May 1841, exiled to Xinjiang (Turkestan). He failed through no fault of his own; he was sent on a “mission impossible." Booth sums it up by saying that Lin had powerful forces massed against him - the military power of the British, the corruption of the Chinese government, and the devious immorality of the opium dealers.'22 The Opium War settled nothing. The long line of an unprotected Chinese coast threw the opium trade, in Elliot's words, 'into desperate hands.' Opium smuggling became totally out of control, and relations between Britain and China remained unstable and hostile. The measures Emperor Daoguang took to stop the opium traffic may have led to war, but it would be inaccurate to say that they caused it. It has been strongly argued that they merely gave an excuse for the war, which certain groups in Britain had been long demanding. It would be wrong, however, to assume that British public opinion was solidly behind the government and its war with China. Elsewhere in the Symposium it will be pointed out that a strong anti-opium sentiment existed in Britain, which in the end could not be silenced and led eventually to the end of the infamous trade. Two examples will suffice here: The Times, upon receiving the news of the Treaty of Nanjing wrote that the moment had come for Britain to extricate herself from her involvement with opium. Some moral compensation was owed to China 'for pillaging her towns and
12
الرقاب
we wanted might have been got, if it had not been for the unaccountably strange conduct of Charles Elliot - not Admiral Elliot, for he was obliged to come away from ill-health who completely disobeyed his instructions and tried to get the lowest terms he could......Albert is so much amused at my having got the Island of Hong Kong...' (author's italics).
Waley compares Lin and Elliot, the opponents in the opium dispute, and finds similarities; for instance, both were civil servants carrying out tasks imposed on them from above, both being cashiered for failing to fulfil these tasks. Strangely, Waley does not mention what is perhaps the most significant similarity: they both detested the opium trade. Elliot saw it as a disgrace and a sin and the blackest stain on the British character. It has even been suggested that Elliot, under instructions to protect the opium traders - a task he resented - deliberately disobeyed his orders and demanded less from the Chinese than the Government at home had ordered him to do.
21
Lin was dismissed in late 1840. He left Guangzhou in May 1841, exiled to Xinjiang (Turkestan). He failed through no fault of his own; he was sent on a “mission impossible." Booth sums it up by saying that Lin had powerful forces massed against him - the military power of the British, the corruption of the Chinese government, and the devious immorality of the opium dealers.'22 The Opium War settled nothing. The long line of an unprotected Chinese coast threw the opium trade, in Elliot's words, 'into desperate hands.' Opium smuggling became totally out of control, and relations between Britain and China remained unstable and hostile. The measures Emperor Daoguang took to stop the opium traffic may have led to war, but it would be inaccurate to say that they caused it. It has been strongly argued that they merely gave an excuse for the war, which certain groups in Britain had been long demanding. It would be wrong, however, to assume that British public opinion was solidly behind the government and its war with China. Elsewhere in the Symposium it will be pointed out that a strong anti- opium sentiment existed in Britain, which in the end could not be silenced and led eventually to the end of the infamous trade. Two examples will suffice here: The Times, upon receiving the news of the Treaty of Nanjing wrote that the moment had come for Britain to extricate herself from her involvement with opium. Some moral compensation was owed to China 'for pillaging her towns and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.