‘It is robbery, sir, plain robbery. It cannot be tolerated!’

‘Are you aware, Captain Elliott, that you are speaking of goods worth many millions of dollars?’

‘And what is more, they do not even belong to us. You are asking us to steal from our investors!’

Captain Elliott let the voices roll around him for a few minutes. When he broke in it was on a conciliatory note. ‘Gentlemen, I do not for a moment dispute the truth of your arguments: that is not at issue here. The question is merely one of securing our release. The Commissioner has set his trap and we are caught in it; there is only one way in which we can escape his clutches and that is by surrendering the opium: there is no other option.’

This only added to the clamour.

‘No option? For subjects of the world’s most powerful nation?’

‘Why, sir, you are a disgrace to your uniform!’

‘Are we Frogs that we should throw up our arms in surrender at the first hint of trouble?’

With a grimace of resignation Captain Elliott glanced at Mr Slade who rose at once from his chair. The clamour continued as he went to the fireplace, cane in hand.

Then Mr Slade unloosed a roar: ‘Gentlemen! Gentlemen, as you well know, no one is more in sympathy with you than I. But this is an instance when we would do well to recall the words fallaces sunt rerum species. We must pay heed to the immortal Seneca; we must look beyond appearances.’

Bahram understood now that Captain Elliott was far cleverer than he had thought: knowing that he commanded little authority in Fanqui-town, he had evidently taken the trouble to recruit some influential voices to speak in his support.

‘A moment’s reflection will reveal to you, gentlemen,’ said Slade, ‘that by seizing our property under threat the Commissioner is doing us a great service. For he is thereby offering Lord Palmerston exactly what needs in order to declare war: a casus belli.’

At this, the protests began to fade away and quiet descended on the room.

‘I have looked into the matter,’ continued Mr Slade, ‘and even a brief inquiry reveals several instances where the seizure of property belonging to British subjects has provided the grounds for a declaration of war. It happened after the massacre of Amboyna, in 1622, when the Dutch seized the property of the English residents of that island and subjected them to unspeakable tortures. Extensive reparations were later exacted. Similarly, the government of Spain has also been forced to indemnify British subjects for the seizure of their property on at least one occasion. But let me emphasize: I cite these examples only as precedents, because the history of commerce does not exhibit any instance of so extensive a robbery as is being contemplated now by Commissioner Lin – and that too on a specious plea of morality.’

‘But Mr Slade!’ The interjection was from Charles King who had risen to his feet. ‘You have neglected to mention a crucial difference between these precedents and the case at hand – which is that the property in question here consists of smuggled goods. The prohibitions of Chinese law against opium are of nearly forty years standing and their existence, and steadily increasing severity, is well known to all. Need I remind you, by way of comparison, that British law states that any person found harbouring prohibited goods shall forfeit treble their value? Need I add further that British law also states that any person who is found guilty of the offence of smuggling shall suffer death as a felon?’