Editing First Opium War (section)

== Escalation of tensions ==

=== Crackdown on opium ===
{{Main|Destruction of opium at Humen}}
[[File:Commissioner Lin Zexu.jpg|thumb|upright|Commissioner Lin Zexu, dubbed "Lin of Clear Skies" for his moral integrity.]]
[[File:Letter by Lin Zexu to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom.jpg|thumb|right|upright|[[Lin Zexu]]'s [[Official Communications of the Chinese Empire#Memorials|"memorial"]] ({{lang-zh|c=摺奏|labels=no}}) written directly to [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Queen Victoria]]]]

By 1838, the British were selling roughly {{cvt|1400|long ton|kg}} of opium per year to China. Legalization of the opium trade was the subject of ongoing debate within the Chinese administration, but a proposal to legalise the narcotic was repeatedly rejected, and in 1838 the government began to actively sentence Chinese drug traffickers to death.<ref>Hanes p. 44.</ref>{{Clarify|date=September 2021|reason=There are more than one Hanes in sources}}

There were also long-term factors that pushed the Chinese government into action. Historian [[Jonathan D. Spence]] lists these factors that led to war:
:the social dislocations that began to appear in the Qing world, the spread of addiction, the growth of a hard-line mentality toward foreigners, foreign refusal to accept Chinese legal norms, changes in international trade structures, and the ending of Western intellectuals' admiration for China.... When the tough prohibitions of 1838 began to take effect, the market diminished and dealers found themselves dangerously oversupplied. A second contributing factor was that the new British post of superintendent of foreign trade in China was held by a deputy of the British crown....If the Chinese crossed the superintendent, they would be insulting the British nation rather than the business corporation....[The superintendent could] call directly on the aid of British armed Forces and the Royal Navy in times of serious trouble.<ref>[[Jonathan D. Spence]], ''[[The Search for Modern China]]'' (1990), p. 153.</ref>

In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor appointed scholar-official [[Lin Zexu]] to the post of Special [[Imperial Commissioner (China)|Imperial Commissioner]] with the task of eradicating the opium trade.<ref>{{Cite web |title=England and China: The Opium Wars, 1839–60 |url=http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/opiumwars/opiumwars1.html |access-date=3 June 2016 |website=victorianweb.org}}</ref> Lin's famous open "[[Lin Zexu#Campaign to suppress opium|Letter To Queen Victoria]]" appealed to [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Queen Victoria]]'s moral reasoning. Citing what he mistakenly understood to be a strict prohibition on opium within Great Britain, Lin questioned how Britain could declare itself moral while its merchants profited from the legal sale in China of a drug that was banned in Britain.<ref name="Fay p143"/> He wrote: "Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws, but I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1839lin2.html Commissioner Lin: Letter to Queen Victoria, 1839]. Modern History Sourcebook.</ref> The letter never reached the Queen, with one source suggesting that it was lost in transit.{{sfn|Hanes|Sanello|2004|p=41}} Lin pledged that nothing would divert him from his mission, "If the traffic in opium were not stopped a few decades from now we shall not only be without soldiers to resist the enemy, but also in want of silver to provide an army."<ref name="Sharpe">{{Cite book |last=Kort |first=Michael |first2=June M. |last2=Grasso |first3=Jay |last3=Corrin |title=Modernization and revolution in China: from the opium wars to the Olympics |year=2009 |publisher=Sharpe |isbn=978-0-7656-2391-1 |edition=4th |location=Armonk, NY}}</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2021}} Lin banned the sale of opium and demanded that all supplies of the drug be surrendered to the Chinese authorities. He also closed the [[Pearl River (China)|Pearl River Channel]], trapping British traders in Guangzhou.<ref name="China: The First Opium War" /> As well as seizing opium stockpiles in warehouses and the thirteen factories, Chinese troops boarded British ships in the Pearl River and [[South China Sea]] before destroying the opium on board.<ref>{{Cite news |date=6 August 2016 |title=Why the Chinese military is still haunted by this 19th-century 'humiliation' |url=https://theweek.com/articles/640709/why-chinese-military-still-haunted-by-19thcentury-humiliation |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200423172227/https://theweek.com/articles/640709/why-chinese-military-still-haunted-by-19thcentury-humiliation |archive-date=23 April 2020 |access-date=7 July 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jjdDAAAAcAAJ&q=chinese+seize+opium&pg=PA72 |title=Report from the select committee on the trade with China: together with the minutes of evidence ... Ordered ... to be printed 5 June 1840 |date=1840}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=September 2021}}

The British Superintendent of Trade in China, [[Charles Elliot]], protested the decision to forcibly seize the opium stockpiles. He ordered all ships carrying opium to flee and prepare for battle. Lin responded by besieging the foreign dealers in the foreign quarter of Guangzhou, and kept them from communicating with their ships in port.<ref name="Sharpe" />{{page needed|date=September 2021}} To defuse the situation, Elliot convinced the British traders to cooperate with Chinese authorities and hand over their opium stockpiles with the promise of eventual compensation for their losses by the British government.<ref name="China: The First Opium War" /> While this amounted to a tacit acknowledgment that the British government did not disapprove of the trade, it also placed a huge liability on the exchequer. This promise, and the inability of the British government to pay it without causing a political storm, was used as an important ''[[casus belli]]'' for the subsequent British attack.<ref>"Foreign Mud: The opium imbroglio at Canton in the 1830s and the Anglo-Chinese War," by Maurice Collis, W.W. Norton, New York, 1946</ref>{{page needed|date=September 2021}} During April and May 1839, British and American dealers surrendered 20,283 chests and 200 sacks of opium. The stockpile was publicly destroyed on the beach outside Guangzhou.<ref name="Sharpe" />{{page needed|date=September 2021}}

[[File:Destruction of opium in 1839.jpg|left|thumb|Contemporary Chinese depiction of the destruction of opium under Commissioner Lin.]]
After the opium was surrendered, trade was restarted on the strict condition that no more opium be shipped into China. Looking for a way to effectively police foreign trade and purge corruption, Lin and his advisers decided to reform the existing bond system. Under this system, a foreign captain and the ''Cohong'' merchant who had purchased the goods off of his ship swore that the vessel carried no illegal goods. Upon examining the records of the port, Lin was infuriated to find that in the 20 years since opium had been declared illegal, not a single infraction had been reported.<ref>Fay (2000) pp. 192–193.</ref> As a consequence, Lin demanded that all foreign merchants and Qing officials sign a new bond promising not to deal in opium under penalty of death.<ref name="coleman">{{Cite book |last=Coleman |first=Anthony |url=https://archive.org/details/millenniumthousa00cole/page/243 |title=Millennium |publisher=Transworld |year=1999 |isbn=0-593-04478-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/millenniumthousa00cole/page/243 243–244]}}</ref> The British government opposed their signing of the bond, feeling that it violated the principle of free trade, but some merchants who did not trade in opium (such as [[Olyphant & Co.]]) were willing to sign against Elliot's orders. Trade in regular goods continued unabated, and the scarcity of opium caused by the seizure of the foreign warehouses caused the [[black market]] to flourish.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Doing Business with China: Early American Trading Houses |url=https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/heard/doing-business-with-china.html |access-date=24 May 2017 |website=www.library.hbs.edu}}</ref> Some newly arrived merchant ships were able to learn of the ban on opium before they entered the Pearl River estuary, and so they unloaded their cargoes at Lintin Island. The opportunity caused by the sharp rise in the price of opium was seized upon by some of the ''Cohong'' trading houses and smugglers, who were able to evade commissioner Lin's efforts and smuggled more opium into China. Superintendent Elliot was aware of the smugglers' activities on Lintin and was under orders to stop them, but feared that any action by the Royal Navy could spark a war and withheld his ships.<ref name="China: The First Opium War" />

=== Skirmish at Kowloon ===
{{see also|Battle of Kowloon}}
In early July 1839 a group of British merchant sailors in [[Kowloon]] became intoxicated after consuming rice liqueur. Two of the sailors became agitated with and beat to death Lin Weixi, a villager from nearby [[Tsim Sha Tsui]].<ref>Hanes & Sanello 2002, p. 61.</ref><ref>Hoe & Roebuck 1999, p. 91.</ref> Superintendent Elliot ordered the arrest of the two men, and paid compensation to Lin's family and village. However, he refused a request to turn the sailors over to Chinese authorities, fearing they would be killed in accordance with the Chinese legal code.<ref>''Correspondence Relating to China'' 1840, p. 432.</ref> Commissioner Lin saw this as an obstruction of justice and Chinese sovereignty, therefore he ordered the sailors to be handed over.<ref>Hanes & Sanello 2002, p. 62.</ref> Elliot instead held a trial for the accused men aboard a warship at sea, with himself serving as the judge and merchant captains serving as jurors. He invited the Qing authorities to observe and comment on the proceedings, but the offer was declined.<ref name="Hoe-1999">Hoe & Roebuck 1999, p. 92.</ref> The naval court convicted 5 sailors of assault and rioting, and sentenced them to fines along with hard labour in Britain (a verdict later overturned in British courts).<ref>''Correspondence Relating to China'' 1840, p. 433.</ref><ref name="Hoe-1999" />

[[File:Barren Kowloon.jpg|left|thumb|1841 painting of the Chinese fort at Kowloon.]]
Angered by the violation of China's sovereignty, Lin recalled Chinese labourers from Macau and issued an edict preventing the sale of food to the British.<ref name="Hoe-1999" /> War Junks were deployed to the mouth of the Pearl River, while signs were placed and rumours spread by the Qing that they had poisoned the freshwater springs traditionally used to restock foreign merchant ships.<ref name="Fay 2000 pp. 203">Fay (2000) p. 203.</ref> On 23 August a ship belonging to a prominent opium merchant was attacked by [[lascar]] pirates while travelling downriver from Guangzhou to Macau. Rumors spread among the British that it had been Chinese soldiers who had attacked the ship, and Elliot ordered all British ships to leave the coast of China by 24 August.<ref name="Fay 2000 pp. 203" /> That same day Macau barred British ships from its harbour at the request of Lin. The commissioner travelled in person to the city, where he was welcomed by some of the inhabitants as a hero who had restored law and order.<ref name="Fay-2000a">Fay (2000) p. 205.</ref> The flight from Macau ensured that by the end of August over 60 British ships and over 2000 people were idling off of the Chinese coast, fast running out of provisions. On 30 August [[HMS Volage (1825)|HMS ''Volage'']] arrived to defend the fleet from a potential Chinese attack, and Elliot warned Qing authorities in Kowloon that the embargo on food and water must be ended soon.<ref>Hoe & Roebuck 1999, p. 93.</ref><ref name="Lovell-2015" />{{page needed|date=November 2021}}

Early on 4 September Elliot dispatched an armed [[schooner]] and a [[Cutter (boat)|cutter]] to Kowloon to buy provisions from Chinese peasants. The two ships approached three Chinese war junks in the harbour and requested permission to land men in order to procure supplies. The British were allowed through and basic necessities were provided to the British by Chinese sailors, but the Chinese commander inside Kowloon fort refused to allow the locals to trade with the British and confined the townspeople inside the settlement. The situation grew more intense as the day went on, and in the afternoon Elliot issued an ultimatum that, if the Chinese refused to allow the British to purchase supplies, they would be fired upon. A 3:00 pm deadline set by Elliot passed and the British ships opened fire on the Chinese vessels. The junks returned fire, and Chinese gunners on land began to fire at the British ships. Nightfall ended the battle, and the Chinese junks withdrew, ending what would be known as the [[Battle of Kowloon]]. Many British officers wanted to launch a land attack on Kowloon fort the next day, but Elliot decided against it, stating that such an action would cause "great injury and irritation" to the town's inhabitants.<ref>''Correspondence Relating to China'' 1840, p. 447.</ref> After the skirmish, Elliot circulated a paper in Kowloon, reading;

{{blockquote|The men of the English nation desire nothing but peace; but they cannot submit to be poisoned and starved. The Imperial cruisers they have no wish to molest or impede; but they must not prevent the people from selling. To deprive men of food is the act only of the unfriendly and hostile.<ref name="p. 449">''Correspondence Relating to China'' 1840, p. 449.</ref>}}

Having driven off the Chinese ships, the British fleet began to purchase provisions from the local villagers, often with the aid of bribed Chinese officials in Kowloon.<ref name="Waley-1958">Waley 1958, p. 70.</ref> [[Lai Enjue]], the local commander at Kowloon, declared that a victory had been won against the British.<ref name="Waley-1958" /> He claimed that a two masted British warship had been sunk, and that 40–50 British had been killed.<ref name="Fay-2000a" /> He also reported that the British had been unable to acquire supplies, and his reports severely understated the strength of the Royal Navy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Battle of Kowloon – Fighting – Gallery {{!}} Empires |url=http://empires-tv-series.net/gallery/fighting/the_battle_of_kowloon.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901063029/http://empires-tv-series.net/gallery/fighting/the_battle_of_kowloon.html |archive-date=1 September 2017 |access-date=5 July 2017 |website=empires-tv-series.net}}</ref><ref>Elleman 2001, p. 15.</ref>{{failed verification|date=September 2021}}

=== Battle of Chuenpi ===

In late October 1839, the merchant ship ''Thomas Coutts'' arrived in China and sailed to Guangzhou. ''Thomas Coutts''{{'}}s [[Quakers|Quaker]] owners refused on religious grounds to deal in opium, a fact that the Chinese authorities were aware of. The ship's captain, Warner, believed Elliot had exceeded his legal authority by banning the signing of the "no opium trade" bond,{{sfn|Hanes|Sanello|2004|p=68}} and negotiated with the governor of Guangzhou. Warner hoped that all British ships not carrying opium could negotiate to legally unload their goods at Chuenpi, an island near [[Humen Town|Humen]].<ref>Hans, Sellano (2004) p. 68.</ref>{{failed verification|date=September 2021}}

To prevent other British ships from following ''Thomas Coutts''{{'}}s precedent, Elliot ordered a blockade of British shipping in the [[Pearl River]]. Fighting began on 3 November 1839, when a second British ship, {{ship||Royal Saxon|1829 ship|2}}, attempted to sail to Guangzhou. The Royal Navy ships [[HMS Volage (1825)|HMS ''Volage'']] and [[HMS Hyacinth (1829)|HMS ''Hyacinth'']] fired warning shots at ''Royal Saxon''. In response to this commotion, a fleet of Chinese [[Junks|war junks]] under the command of [[Guan Tianpei]] sailed out to protect ''Royal Saxon''.<ref>Parker (1888) pp. 10–11.</ref> The ensuing [[Battle of Chuenpi]] resulted in the destruction of 4 Chinese war junks and the withdrawal of both fleets.<ref name="Elleman-2001">{{Cite book |last=Elleman |first=Bruce A. |title=Modern Chinese warfare, 1795–1989 |year=2001 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0-415-21474-2}}</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2021}} The Qing navy's official report on the Battle of Chuenpi claimed that the navy had protected the British merchant vessel and reported a great victory for the day. In reality, the Chinese had been out-classed by the British vessels and several Chinese ships were disabled.<ref name="Elleman-2001" />{{page needed|date=December 2021}} Elliot reported that his squadron was protecting the 29 British ships in Chuenpi, and began to prepare for the Qing reprisal. Fearing that the Chinese would reject any contacts with the British and eventually attack with fire rafts, he ordered all ships to leave Chuenpi and head for [[Causeway Bay]], {{convert|20|mi|km|-1}} from Macau, hoping that offshore anchorages would be out of range of Lin. Elliot asked [[Adrião Acácio da Silveira Pinto]], the Portuguese governor of Macau, to let British ships load and unload their goods there in exchange for paying rents and any duties. The governor refused for fear that the Chinese would discontinue supplying food and other necessities to Macau, and on 14 January 1840 the Daoguang Emperor asked all foreign merchants in China to halt material assistance to the British.<ref name="Elleman-2001" />{{page needed|date=December 2021}}

=== 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>