I. The confusion of imperialism

Much of the confusion surrounding the origins of the Arrow War arose because the Arrow incident was regarded as the casus belli by Britain at the time, and by historians generally since. It was such a flimsy excuse that I could hardly believe the British authorities were serious; they did not tell the truth. Lord Ellenborough was an exception. In censuring Bowring for having acted ‘throughout with no motive whatever but that which is denounced –general covetousness and the desire of making money by the misfortunes of mankind’, he revealed the pivotal cause of the war. Others in the House of Lords preferred to keep quiet. This is not surprising. Would any government in any age admit pubicly to the motives Ellenborough ascribed to Bowring?

Members in the House of Commons were similarly restrained. Nonetheless the debate there developed in such a way as to unravel the real intentions of the government: the fearless Palmerston accepted Russell's challenge and gave material justification for the military measures which Bowring had taken against China. This episode began with Richard Cobden and Erskine Perry complaining about the imbalance of trade with China; the lord advocate proposing, for the sake of the grave interests involved, to fight the war to the end; and Sidney Herbert highlighting the importance of the opium trade for Indian finance; whereupon Palmerston defended the opium trade by saying that it helped to balance the trade deficit with China.