me country. Most importantly, the opium problem was never addressed and after the treaty was signed opium addiction doubled. China was forced to pay 21 million silver taels as an indemnity, which was used to pay compensation for the traders' opium destroyed by Commissioner Lin. A couple of years after the treaties were signed internal rebellion began to threaten foreign trade. Due to the Qing government's inability to control collection of taxes on imported goods, the British government convinced the Manchu court to allow Westerners to partake in government official affairs. By the 1850s the Chinese Maritime Customs Service, one of the most important bureaucracies in the Manchu Government, was partially staffed and managed by Western Foreigners. In 1858, opium was legalised, and would remain a problem.
Commissioner Lin, often referred to as "Lin the Clear Sky" for his moral probity, was made a scapegoat. He was blamed for ultimately failing to stem the tide of opium imports and usage as well as for provoking an unwinnable war through his rigidity and lack of understanding of the changing world. Nevertheless, as the Chinese nation formed in the 20th century, Lin became viewed as a hero, and has been immortalized at various locations around China.
The First Opium War both reflected and contributed to a further weakening of the Chinese state's power and legitimacy. Anti-Qing sentiment grew in the form of rebellions, such as the Taiping Rebellion, a war lasting from 1850–64 in which at least 20 million Chinese died. The decline of the Qing dynasty was beginning to be felt by much of the Chinese population.
The evil impact of the opium habit on the Chinese people, and the arrogant manner in which the British imposed their superior power to guarantee the profitable trade, have been the staples of Chinese historiography ever since. For the most part independent historians have agreed with this moralistic line of thought. However, there is a revisionist interpretation, set out by the American historian John K. Fairbank:
Some historians claim that Lord Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, initiated the Opium War to maintain the principle of free trade. Professor Glenn Melancon, for example, argues that the issue in going to war was not opium but Britain's need to uphold its reputation, its honour, and its commitment to global free trade. China was pressing Britain just when the British faced serious pressures in the Near East, on the Indian frontier, and in Latin America. In the end, says Melancon, the government's need to maintain its honour in Britain and prestige abroad forced the decision to go to war. Former American president John Quincy Adams commented that opium was "a mere incident to the dispute ... the cause of the war is the kowtow—the arrogant and insupportable pretensions of China that she will hold commercial intercourse with the rest of mankind not upon terms of equal reciprocity, but upon the insulting and degrading forms of the relations between lord and vassal."
The most recent version is by Australian historian Harry G. Gelber who argues that opium played a role similar to the tea dumped into the harbor in the Boston Tea Party Of 1773 leading to the American Revolutionary War. Gelber argues instead that:
Western women were not legally permitted to enter China in the first place. Into the 19th century, Western nations did not recognise diplomatic equality for entities that failed to meet their "standard of civilisation", including China.
The policy of restricting trade to a single port was also used in Western countries such as Spain and Portugal. Western merchants could also trade freely and legally with Chinese merchants in Xiamen and Macao, or when the trade was conducted through ports outside China such as Manila and Batavia.
The public in Western countries had earlier condemned the British government for supporting the opium trade. By 1850, opium smuggling to China accounted for up to 20% of the revenue of the British Empire, serving as the most profitable single commodity trade of the 19th century. 