The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-02 00:00:00

!C- ~ - "" ~~ '6,- - 'r k rt + and twenty years ago), has been to defy all law I except that which he invented , and ada p ted to the particular matter in hand ; for if, even con temporaneously, two separate matters appeared to require two directly opposite laws to be pro pounded, in order (as he vainly thought) to obtain a special advantage in each, he had no scruple in proclaiming contradictory laws. That our readers may not think we are making an un tenable assertion, we advise them to compare Lord PALMERSTON'S speech, in 1850, on the second night of the Don Pacifico debate, with his despatch to Austria quoted by Lord Jouri . RUSSELL on the following evening. By this course, frequently repeated, Lord PAL mEns-mx so managed as to deprive this country of all moral weight in its dealings with surrounding nations. Now, our principle is, that, if the physical force of Great Britain be backed by moral influence, she will be almost irresistible for good throughout the world ; and we affirm that Lord PALMERSTON neutralized England's power, more one-half, because he deprived her phy strength of the moral support, which a nation derives from adherence to law and We want 0....ae . e, —swat we are confident I.6lllmarbar I delicate Now, one of the Inv,. affairs with which Lord Dzoweia -- has had to deal has been the complication, in which the proceedings of Lord PALmxits•rox's Government had involved our relations with the vast empire of Chins. -Lord Dimity, when out of office, had denouricedwith indignant eloquence the unjustifiable proceedings of the British au thorities at Canton. A very large minority of the House of Lords had censured those proceed ings at his instigation, and his party in the House of Commons had aided in carrying a resolution condemning them. Notwithstanding, however,this censure, the late Government persevered, and that without further Parliamentary opposition, in back ing British authorities at Canton in their hostile measures, and thus they committed the nation,in the eyes of the Chinese, to what was equivalent to an affirmation that, in the quarrel, justice was on the side of England. A more difficult position for a Government to have been placed in cannot well be imagined • for, much as its members might have disapproved of the conduct of the former Ministers, we appre hend that no one will be of opinion that it would have been either safe, or wise, or just, to have marked that disapprobation by adopting the same steps which they would have adopted in the first instance, before the country had been pledged to a totally different course. No Admi nistration, indeed, can honestly repudiate the acts of its predecessors, done in the name of the nation, however wrong and however impolitic, in their judgment, those acts may be. The in justice of such a course, to say nothing of the uncertainty and confusion which it would pro duce in all international affairs, is self-evident. In this state of things there was only one path which statesmen, situated as the present Govern ment were, could safely and honestly pursue ; and that was to endeavour to bring the war to a 8 speedy a conclusion as possible, asking nothing of China beyond what one independent nation has a right to requirI f of another, accoring to the law of nations. any advantage we r e to be taken to extort terms from the Chinese, such as a nation that has been injured by another has a _ knew—what , at all acquainted with the opinions of foreign na tions must also have known—that, from one end of the world to the other, the name of Great Britain was hated and feared, because, under Lord PALNIERSTON'S guidance, for selfish ends, she set at nought the great principles of international law,which her statesmen had been used to proclaim, and to the maintenanee of which, through good report and through evil report, they had pledged the good faith of their country. To the honour and praise of the present administrators of our Foreign Policy, it can truly be said, that there is beginning to arise through out Europe a very different feeling towards this nation from that which unhappily has so long prevailed. A belief is spreading that deference . to international law again sways the councils o f Britain ; and something like confidence in the honour and honesty of British rulers is beginning to be felt by both governments, and peoples. We appeal to every impartial Englishman who during this holiday season has travelled on the Conti nent, if the truth of what we now state he not in conformity with their own personal expe rience. We hail, therefore, this dawn of better days : for we hold—and this we proclaim as the grand fundamental principle which we shall take as our standard, whereby to test the merits of each act of our Foreign Policy—that the real secret of England's strength lies in her moral rectitude,-- to shown in a clnsistent adherence to the principles which she has proclaimed, regardless whether, in the particular instance to which they may be applied, they may prove advantageous or disadvantageous to her interests—and in an obedience to the law of nations, as laid down by her own celebrated jurists,—so that the world may judge before-hand the course that she will take on any given point, by ascertaining what that law prescribes. The policy of Lord PALMERSTON, from the day he first went to the Foreign-office (some eight LAT EST EDITION. down demnit: for the by deeds, mons reco were deeds " no satisfac We earnestly LONDON SATURDAY, 0 cfroBER 2, 1858. STAMPED PE ....SIXPENCE. UNSTAMD..FIVEPENCE. fair right to require as a set-off for such injury, then would the present Government have dealt unjustly by China, and their proceedings ought to be fearlessly condemned. But, looking at the new Treaty, and comparing its stipulations with the acknowledged law of nations, we are bound to confess that we sec nothing in it which one independent State has not a fair right to ask of another independent State, against which it has no cause of complaint. What has been required by Lord Ei.on ix the Treaty, might have been fairly required from the Chinese Plenipotentiaries had no dispute what ever arisen at Canton. Moreover, there are stipulations against smuggling renewed in this Treaty, which must be very satisfactory to the Chinese, if only they are as honestly carried out, by our present rulers, as similar stipulations in the former Treaty were systematically and delibe rately violated by those who preceded them. We may therefore congratulate our readers on the wise, just, and skilful policy whereby this country has been extricated with credit ant honour from a most embarrassing position; atii' if ever the real history of these tramsednin" should be recorded, and if the instruclims*Vilb which Lord Etont was originally fausWinginligt our present sanction appears us might nave justuleam, have dishonoured us as a nation to have intilleir on, could we only have, based our demands on the plea that we werialk, Injured party at Canton—a plea which a#4loo=ded resolution .11 of the House of Commons' hat kuthoritatiiely repudiated. And here we would gladly close our observa tions ; and truly rejoiced should we be if the Treaty itself, on which we have been comment ing, closed the whole transaction. Would that there was no " separate article" to shock our sense of justice. Would that we could expunge the words that provide an indemnity for "the losses • " sustained by British subjects through the mis " conduct of the Chinese authorities at Canton " Would that we could expunge the words which provide an indemnity to us "on account of the expenses of the war." We shall look most anxiously for an official explanation of this separate article. Prima facie, it seems to us quite inconsistent with the other acts of the statesman who prescribed the terms in the body of the Treaty. The war stands condemned by a vote of the house of Commons. The authorities who corn menced the hostilities at Canton did not, accord ing to that vote, " establish satisfactory grounds " for the violent measures resorted to at Canton" —measures of extreme violence, destroying great numbers of lives, and a vast amount of Chinese property : and for the losses, in the way of r reta- liation,' authdrities thus b 1 of complaint, we held it up as a bad characteristic throw of the age, that the generality of statesmen PALM than would profess one principle at o ne moment and a directly contrary one at another, in order to Frest justify their inconsistent condi' Amon* the juatie statesmen who is eourse of bare we id furnished the most striking iieddelkl4lPßOws With inconsistency of principle, the late Preinier, No Lord PALMERRTON, stands conspicuous. It was for affair this reason specially, above others, that we prayed has h for his overthrow. We knew—what those who are whicl . • _ _ anv‘ ty ; auu un iiiG avaa...,-, Asa ......., .._ J which the British authdrities thus brotht upon their countrymen a pecuniary m- ty has been exacted, and also an indemnity e expenses of a war, which was provoked )( ,,c4Z !ds, respecting which the House of Com - records its deliberate opinion deeds of "violence," for wipic t , ... atisfactory grounds" ! U. ( "1 4 . - ~/ shall anxiously wait fore . .. 1 . ' it, itly do we hope that it O. 1 1 . ,,,-i ., :q;; ilb co )resent Ministry have lie • ; ? ~.1 1 ...,:;7 1-, ri ° * CI, on to a demand which, .. +. 4, . .1i . i. .., P 4 rs to us quite indefensible. : , ,Aa A4 :7 %' 4 •.,-,, e" II N . ‘ Tl 4 zbt No. 283.—V0L. VI. gte Vrtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1858. FOREIGN POLICY _CHINA. As we have already informed our readers that a material change has taken place in the manage ment of THE PRESS, it is right that we should be explicit as to the principles on which it will be conducted. A few weeks ago, an article appeared in our columns complaining of the want, not only of sound principle, but of any consistency of principle, in the greater part of the public men of the day. We made it matter of characteristic