1. What is the historical significance of The Treaty of Nanking?
The Treaty of Nanking1
was an agreement between Great Britain and the Emperor of China
which brokered both a trade agreement and a cessation of hostilities. In 1839, the first Anglo-
Chinese war, more popularly known as the “First Opium War”, broke out thanks to a number
of factors. The end of the East India Company’s monopoly on tea trading in 1833 prompted a
large number of aggressive traders to begin exporting tea to Britain while importing Opium
into China. While the practice of importing opium into China was not a new affair - it had
been growing in popularity since 1820 as a means of stymieing China’s insatiable desire for
British silver - never before had so much opium been brought into the country at any one
time. In approximately forty years, Chinese imports of opium had risen from 4,000 chests per
annum, each containing 140lbs worth of the narcotic, to almost 40,000 chests per annum,
causing addiction rates in China, especially in coastal areas, to shoot up at an amazing level2
.
At the same time as the growth of the opium trade, British missionaries were attempting to
convert reluctant Chinese citizens to Christianity, an act of supreme arrogance on Britain’s
part, as well as Superintendent of British Trade in China William Napier being woefully
under-qualified for his job, insulting his counterparts in the Chinese government, and
breaking multiple Anglo-Chinese trade agreements. This resulted in several Royal Navy crew
members being killed and Napier being threatened with decapitation by the governor of
Canton. War was now inevitable. The situation came to a head when a senior Chinese civil
servant, was ordered by the Emperor to seize or destroy all opium stocks in Canton, arrest of
the most notorious opium traders, and deny food and shelter to British opium smugglers3
.
When news reached London, war was declared and Britain’s armed forces set off to deal with
the Chinese. By the summer of 1842, Britain was victorious and was able to set the terms for
the first “Unequal Treaty” with the Chinese government.
The Treaty itself was drawn up with several objectives in mind. Firstly, it was to establish a
peace between Britain and China, the second was to re-establish trade relations with China,
with British merchandise to be accepted in five different port cities as well as the Chinese
ceding the sixth city, Hong Kong, to the British. All trade was to be conducted through fixed
tariffs for both Chinese and European traders with “extraterritoriality” - exemption from
1
Throughout this essay the Anglicised translations for Chinese locations will be used as is seen in the original
treaty.
2
Julia Lovell, The Opium War. Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China, (London: Picador, 2011), p.1-7.
3
Lovell, The Opium War, p.17-108

2. Chinese law – protecting British citizens in China. A third stipulation asked for monetary
reimbursement for the lost opium of 1839 and the cost of the war itself, a forth demanded that
the “Canton Trading System” be abolished with the British being allowed universal trade
rights in all ports, while other demands included the release of all Crown prisoners, be they
European or Sepoys, the promise to withdraw British troops from certain occupied areas of
China upon receiving payment who were paralyzing the Chinese economy, allowing British
subjects to settle in China, and amnesty for all Chinese citizens who aided the British during
the conflict4
. From these terms, it is possible to see why the Treaty of Nanjing was given the
moniker of “The Unequal Treaty” by Chinese scholars as China was at a clear disadvantage
during negotiations. As well as this, similar agreements conducted by the British Empire
became known as “Gunboat Diplomacy” owing to the fact the British military were ready to
continue their land campaign as well as bombarding the city of Nanking from the water if
negotiations broke down.
British interests can clearly be seen in the first article of the treaty, with immediate emphasis
based on trade, the agreement stating “the Emperor of China agrees to abolish that practice
[Canton Trade System] in future at all ports where British merchants may reside, and to
permit them to carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they please”5
. It
is only after this statement has been made that the treaty continues “There shall henceforward
be peace and friendship between Her Majesty the Queen… and His Majesty the Emperor of
China”6
. From this it is evident that the British did not orchestrate the treaty for any
humanitarian reasons but for the sole purpose of resuming trade, thereby portraying the
British as being entirely materialistic. This is important when examining Victorian era
motivations, as it clashes with Perdue's hypothesis that Christianity was a driving force
behind Victorian foreign policy and that the British were civilizing the native populous7
. This
is supported by the British demanding that “His Imperial Majesty… agrees to pay to the
British Government the sum of 3,000,000 [sic] dollars” owing to a diplomatic slight of a
junior Chinese diplomat trying to stop the bombardment of Nanjing8
.
4
Pottinger, H, 'The Treaty of Nanking', The Treaty of Nanking, http://nanking.com/ [accessed 22 November
2013].
5
Pottinger, 'The Treaty of Nanking', Article I.
6
Pottinger, 'The Treaty of Nanking', Article I.
7
Perdue, P.C., 'The First Opium War. The Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-1842', MIT Journals, p.31-64
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf [accessed 4 December 2013].
8
Lovell, The Opium War, p.232.

3. Another British priority was the reparation of the British national image and the fear and
respect of the Chinese people; thus, further monetary demands were made upon the Chinese
government. Remembering the Chinese destruction of British opium in 1839, “The Emperor
of China agrees to pay... 6,000,000 dollars [sic], as the value of the opium which was
delivered... at Canton in... March, 1839, as a ransom for the lives of Her Britannic Majesty's
Superintendent and subjects, who had been imprisoned and threatened with death by the
Chinese High Officers”9
. Despite the Chinese acting in a legal manner, the destruction of
opium against British wishes demonstrates the need by the British to make an example of the
Chinese to other foreign nations who would seek to control their own economic and internal
destinies. Not only does the fine act as a warning, it also displays the insecurities felt by the
British who wished to remain as the world's foremost superpower. A position that could be
threatened by repeated signs of weakness.
The Chinese' poor treatment of British prisoners, particularly those of a high rank, is also
punished through heavy fines. The British complain in Article VI that “The Government [of
Great Britain] having been obliged to send out an expedition to demand and obtain redress
for the violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese... towards Her... Majesty's officer[s] and
subjects, the Emperor of China agrees to pay the sum of 12,000,000 dollars, on account of
the expenses incurred [sic]”10
. From this demand, it can be seen clearly that the British
government cared less about the lives of its soldiers than the cost incurred by transporting
freed and wounded prisoners home. It is also incredibly hypocritical and arguably racist, as
British troops were documented on numerous occasions as having looted, burned, and killed
entire towns without thought. Despite this, there was still a feeling of moral superiority felt
by the British who had already regarded the Chinese with some horror at the Qing's
continued use of torture11
. This gives a clear insight into the typical attitudes felt by the
British elite. Not only were they contemptuous of the barbarous Chinese but also their own
lower classes, especially those who were in the army. This is no more clearly stated than by
the Duke of Wellington in 1813 who had proclaimed, despite caring deeply for his men, that
“We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers”12
. This was a continued
9
Pottinger, The Treaty of Nanking, Article IV.
10
Pottinger, The Treaty of Nanking, Article VI.
11
Lovell, The Opium War, p.174-222.
12
Peter Snow, To War with Wellington: From the Peninsula to Waterloo, (St. Ives plc: John Murray Publishers),
2011.

4. belief throughout most of the nineteenth century and again demonstrates the lack of
humanitarian thought in the mindset of the majority of the Victorian elite.
A further demand upon the Chinese was the British demanding respect from Qing ministers,
proclaiming “Her Britannic Majesty's Chief High Officer in China shall correspond with the
Chinese High Officers... on a footing of perfect equality”13
. Previously, the Chinese had
viewed foreigners from a Confucian standpoint and used the character “yi” in official
correspondence, a character that's meaning was highly open to interpretation, with one
translation equating to “barbarian”14
. Understandably, this was a contentious issue for the
British who believed the Chinese to be the barbarian culture; the continued use of the
character by the Chinese was seen as dangerous to Britain's reputation as well as humiliating.
The British demand to be treated as equals was calculated to be a huge blow to Chinese
national pride. One Chinese historian believed that a lack of cultural respect was the root
cause of the First Opium War, claiming “...the problem of opium was of secondary
importance. The British concern was with the inequity of their relationship with the Chinese
government”15
. While this may be an exaggerated claim, it is not without merit.
British arrogance when dealing with foreign nations is a well-documented fact and is
evidenced in Article III of the treaty stating, almost casually, that “It being obviously
necessary and desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat they may
[maintain] and refit their ships when required, and keep stores for that purpose, His Majesty
the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty… the Island of Hong-Kong”16
. As can be seen
from the tone used by the British, this is a clear example of “Gunboat Diplomacy” in effect.
Although this is an extortionate demand, verging on diplomatically insulting, the British
threat of force to the Chinese was enough to grant acceptance from the Emperor. Not only
does this demonstrate the British’s confidence in their army, it also allowed for a permanent
naval base to exist in the Pacific, thus promoting British naval hegemony; a British strategy
that had existed since the seventeenth century17
. Hong Kong was not only of military
importance but of diplomatic and economic importance as well. By controlling a Chinese
13
Pottinger, The Treaty of Nanking, Article XI.
14
Lydia H. Liu, The Clash of Empires. The Invention Of China In Modern World Making, (Harvard: Havard
University Press), 2006. p. 33-35.
15
Franz Schurmann, Orville Schell, (Eds.), Imperial China, (London: Penguin Books), 1967. p. 125-138
16
Pottinger, The Treaty of Nanking, Article III.
17
William Gibson, A Brief History Of Britain. 1660-1851, (London: Robinson), 2006. p. 139-211.

5. city, Britain was able to have a permanent sphere of influence within the region as well as an
Anglicised trading post, allowing for economic growth and influence before national rivals
such as the French and Americans could establish a similar foothold18
. Despite this, a
contemporary high society writer, Julia Corner, proclaimed that Hong Kong was a “wretched,
unproductive, pestiferous island [sic]” which would never be of any value19
. Not only does
this claim prove the benefit of hindsight but it also shows that despite the treaty being a
massive success, it was still viewed in a critical manner by the British elite.
A further clause in the treaty is the British insistence on the safety of Chinese citizens who
co-operated with the British during the invasion. While this seems uncharacteristic of the
British, it is, in fact, the protection of British interests. The British demand for “a full and
entire amnesty... to all subjects of China, on account of their having resided under, or having
had dealings... or having entered the service of Her... Majesty, or of Her... officers” and “His
Imperial Majesty further engages to release all Chinese subjects who may be... in
confinement”20
. By allowing cooperative Chinese merchants to be arrested and tortured, the
British would soon have to abandon large areas of China to the opium trade, damaging
profits. By expediting the release of Chinese traders, not only did the British seek to improve
the current economy but also by potentially expanding it.
China's first major interaction with Britain announced the end of traditional China, with
Britain forcing its way into the country with every possible method. Not only did the treaty
forever change China, it also typified British foreign policy for the next century. As can be
seen, the treaty allowed Britain to expand its sphere of influence, as well as its military,
economic, and political hegemony into the orient. The treaty also displays how the British
government was aggressively expansive and determined to maintain its international position
through a combination of military force and extortion. The treaty therefore is extremely
relevant to a historian wishing to understand the motivations behind Victorian era foreign
policy as well as understanding how governmental objectives were achieved while keeping
governmental expenditure to an absolute minimum. The treaty also allows for a glimpse at
the Victorian religious and racial hypocrisy that permeated Europe at that time.
18
Jonathan D. Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), p.160
19
Julia Corner, The First Opium War. The Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-1842,
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf [accessed 4 December 2013]
20
Pottinger, The Treaty of Nanking, Article IX.

6. Reference List
Primary Sources
Pottinger, H., The Treaty of Nanking, The Treaty of Nanking, Articles I-XII,
http://nanking.com/ [accessed 22 November 2013]
Secondary Sources
Books
Gibson, W., A Brief History Of Britain. 1660-1851, (London: Robinson), 2006.
Schurmann, F., Schell, O., (Eds.), Imperial China, (London: Penguin Books), 1967.
Snow, P., To War with Wellington: From the Peninsula to Waterloo, (St. Ives plc: John Murray Publishers),
2011.
Spence, J.D., The Search for Modern China (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999)
Liu, L.H., The Clash of Empires. The Invention Of China In Modern World Making,
(Harvard: Havard University Press), 2006
Lovell, J., The Opium War. Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China, (London: Picador,
2011)
Online Articles
Perdue, P.C. The First Opium War. The Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-1842, MIT Journals,
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf [accessed 4
December 2013]

7. Bibliography
Primary Sources
Pottinger, H., The Treaty of Nanking, The Treaty of Nanking, Article III, http://nanking.com/
[accessed 22 November 2013]
Secondary Sources
Books
Gibson, W., A Brief History Of Britain. 1660-1851, (London: Robinson), 2006.
Schurmann, F., Schell, O., (Eds.), Imperial China, (London: Penguin Books), 1967.
Snow, P., To War with Wellington: From the Peninsula to Waterloo, (St. Ives plc: John Murray Publishers),
2011.
Spence, J.D., The Search for Modern China (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999)
Liu, L.H., The Clash of Empires. The Invention Of China In Modern World Making,
(Harvard: Havard University Press), 2006
Lovell, J., The Opium War. Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China, (London: Picador,
2011)
Online Articles
Perdue, P.C., The First Opium War. The Anglo-Chinese War of 1839-1842, MIT Journals,
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay.pdf [accessed 4
December 2013]