was
undertaken by the English[108] to exact compensation for injury to British
subjects, and to make the Chinese understand that foreign nations were
entitled to, and would exact fair and respectful usage. The French waged
war to avenge the murder of a missionary, M. Chapdelaine, in 1856, so that
we may in strict justice call this a missionary war; and certainly that
part of the Treaty of Tientsin which may be said to have been wrung from
the Chinese most against their wills is that which gives
missionaries--Protestant as well as Roman Catholic--an entrance into any
part of China, and extends to them while there, and to their converts, the
protection of their respective Governments.[109]

So far, then, the evidence as to force breaks down entirely, but it cannot
be denied that in a certain sense the Chinese are coerced in respect of
the tariff on opium. This was fixed in the convention following the Treaty
of Tientsin, with the condition attached that the tariff could be revised
after ten years. And the Chinese have expressed a desire to alter the
tariff by raising the dues on opium. The negotiations between Sir Thomas
Wade and Prince Kung have been given at length above,[110] so it will only
be necessary here to repeat that the Home Government have not seen their
way yet to accept Sir Thomas' proposal;[111] and consequently (and here
lies the one strong plea of the anti-opiumists) as the matter now stands,
the Chinese are prevented from raising the import duty on opium, though
they can alter the likin as much as they please. This may be fully
conceded. What would be the result of allowing China free liberty in this
matter will be discussed hereafter; but we may be allowed to remark here,
that in this hasty denunciation of force applied to China, the eloquent
advocates for the suppression of the opium trade forget that we are guilty
of forcing not only opium and missionaries, but ourselves as a nation, our
commerce, our civilization in their entirety, on an unwilling and
exclusive people. On the abstract justice of such a course we need not
dwell. It is enough to say that it has been pursued by the stronger
towards the weaker in all ages of the world, and no treaty has ever been
imposed upon an Asiatic by an European Power except by force.

The next objection refers to our _monopoly_ of the drug, some finding
fault with it as economically wrong, others as morally indefensible. To
the former, who like Sir Charles Trevel