BRITAIN AND CHINA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19658, 9 June 1927, Page 14

BRITAIN AND CHINA.

Sir;— With astonishment I read the New Zealand Welfare League's statement "that the war with China in 1840 was not fought to force opium on China." If bv that the league means that "it was waged for the sake of trade generally in which opium was only one item-' (Sir R. Temple, P.C.), I. will agree, with the reservation that opium was by tar the most important item. My contention is borne out by the Parliamentary debates of the time and by the general historical literature. Earl. Shaftesbury, W. E. Gladstone, Cobden and many another statesman of repute denounced the "opium war" in scathing terms, and it was only by nine votes that Sir J. Graliame's motion of censure agairst the Government was lost. Even Palmerston himself did .not deny the sordid cause of *the war. As for the statement that "in the treaty that followed opium is not referred to," I would suggest to the Welfare League's writer that he read his history more carefully. In the treaty signed on the 29th July, 1842, it was stipulated that an indemnity of six million pounds was to be paid for. the opium that had been destroyed for Commissioner Lin. So much for that. If further particular mention of opium was omitted it was simply because it was covered by the general trade agreement which the" Chinese were forced to sign. The Eighteenth Amendment, wluch forbids the use and importation Of alcoholic liquors in America may or may not be "constitutional," it may or may not be in accordance with the wishes" of the majority of the citizens, but I have yet to be told that Britain would- be justified in attempting to force Scotch whisky upon the United States of America. Just as little justification had Britain for forcing opium upon China. I would suggest to the Welfare League that patriotism and jingoism are not interchangeable terms. S. W. Scott.