The Sun. — London, England, 1840-04-10 00:00:00

EVEN IN CT El__ fION party purposes ; he complained no calamity could happen , to our flag or armies but the Government were charged with it. .He (Mr. Hogg) was sorry to say, since they had been at the bead of affairs such calamities had been fre quent; but they would never occur through the miscon duct of Ministers without their hearing of it from that side of the House. It was said that the Right Hon. Baronet bad framed his motion to catch votes—that he had not met ' the question boldly. Now that was a most extraordinary imputation, and if it waa framed to catch votes, it would have oeen framed to catch the anti.- war men. It would have denounced the war instead of avoiding it. It was well known that there were many Hon. Members in that House who were so opposed to war that they would vote for any motion which included its denunciation. His Right Hon. Friend might have included the opium question, upon which it was well known that a strong feeling ex isted in that House, and had he only reprobated it, he might have caught at least 20 votes. The Right Hon. Baronet however applied himself exclusively to the censure of her Majesty's Government. It had been urged by the Hon. Members for Lambeth and Liskeard that the Members of the former AdminLtration had shaped the measures se clumsily and awkwardly, that to them was was to be attri buted the whole of the present difficulties. If that were so, why did they not support the present motion ?—( Hear , hear.) If they admitted that the conduct of the Govern ment in 1833 was wrong, how could they now gat rid of the charge ? Lord J. RUSSELL—That is not the motion. Mr. HOGG understood that it was.—(The Hon. Mem ber here read the terms of the motion, which attributed the outbreak with China to the want of foresight on the part of her Majesty's advisers.) ! Mr. HAWES—No, no, you omitted a word. Mr. HOGG again read the passage, which was " her Ma jesty's present advisers."—(Cheers.) He was' really at a foss to understand the interruption, unless it was that the Right Hon. Baronet was the top and soul of the Govsrn ment, although neither he nor the Noble Lord, who . might be termed almost exclusively the Adminis tration h , n longer sat upon that side of the House.—( Hear, ear o .) - He hoped, however, the Right Hon. G e ntlemen the Secretary at War, and the Noble L ord the Secretary f or the Colonies, • would admit the id entit y of the present Government. iThe Hon. Member for Liskeard had stated the House had not adequate information before it, and that it knew nothing at all about the m atter. He would show that the House knew everything relating to China, that every single indi vidual competent to afford information was examined before i both Houses of Parliament, that every paper was laid be fore them, and that all the information they were in pos session of then they were in possession of at the present m oment. It was clearly shown that the Chinese jealously excluded strangers from the interior, that they admitted no diplomatic relations with foreign states, that they admitted n o resident political public o ffi cer, that foreign ships were admitted into no ports but Canton, that at Canton fo reigners were admitted not to trade with merchants generally, but only with a select few, constituting a mono poly called the Hong, and that the Chinese required strangers when communicating with them to adopt the li form of a petition or humble request. It was also shown '', that elle trade was managed by supercargoes, and that they Iwere not a political body. The attention of Ministers was called to the subject in both Houses of Par liament—it was called to their attention by the Hon.' Mem ber for Portsmouth—the Hon. Member for the University of Oxfold also pointed out the inefficiency of the new authority proposed to be substituted for the supercargoes. Lord Ellenborough also called the attention of Ministers to the subject in the House of Lords, and• had said al though they appointed the superintendents to succeed to the duties, yet they would not succeed to the influence of the supercargoes. The Hon. Member for Liskeard should have read the papers more fully before he said that the East India Company had authorized appeals to the natives, whereas the Company had distinctly disapproved of it. He ( Mr, Hogg) did not disapprove of a public officer like the Canton Superintendent being left with discretion, but he objected to discretion being accompanied with no powers. It would be said, perhaps, that the Right Hon. Baronet, 1 the' Member for Pembroke, was e ualqly accountable for ttis, but that would not exculpate the present Government. He considered the Specific instructions which had been sen t by the Noble Lord to have led as much as an y thin g i t o tie presen t cessation of our present friendly i nte r c ourse le"th Canes. Lord Napier went to China as a political offis•n'; and what happened during his residence there, and e:irit ;vas the conduct he pursued? He (Mr. Hogg) ex tremer•yr ;-egretted to be necessitated to speak on this sub ,c: ;13110 one was more anxious than himself to avoid ' hurting the feelings of any surviving relative of that Noble ) man ; but the te„sult of his conduct was of the utmost irn -1 yorucce to this nation ; therefore he was under the neces -1 sit eof calling the attnition of the House to it, as be thought lire Right Jim. Bsronei had not treated it with the at ! tentioe it deserved. Lord Napier landed at Macao on the 23 b of July, and proeteded et once to Canton without witheet .sking leave ; he arrived in Canton in the middle of tie iiilitt, and thereby enabled the Chinese authorities to state that lie strived clandestinely. He demanded direct , cornmenicatio2 with the Viceroy—he rejected the usual 1 chstieels of c ommunication, and paraded most in i judiciously his authority, in consequence of which i the Chinese authorities caused to recognise him t as a political cfficer, which o ccasioned the rupture. iHe (Mr. Hogg) wanted to prove that her Majesty's Ge t vernmena within one year after Lord Napier left England, ihad full information of these events. He thought the good sense in these pavers 17.. as all on the side of the Chinese. The/ t. , :sirl to Lord Napier--" Who are you; if you come ') to f ••• t he •-• dut i es 'AI you- predecessors you mutt t per o.rn sari, A • perform them in the same w ay ; they conformed to our .' usage, and you must do the s a,olo. It is an old saying when you come into a country i there is no necessity for a i n c i etire into its:customs; pe osi e .„ . 1 officer, he would only embarrass us." Nothing could be mor,? moderate or ap ; propriete, hut he was sorry he could not :say the same of r the proceedings of his Lordship; his conduct was calcu- He l lated to excite the greatest possible apieruhension. Igave a narrative of his proceedings which if they t did could not alarm the Viceroy be (Mr. Hogg) kne w not wha. His Lordship said—" I will communicate with the Vice roy directly in a manner befitting her Majesty's Commis sion, and the honour of the British nation'," 112 said—" I will compel the Viceroy to receive my letter," and informs the Noble Lord that although they had forty thousand men garrisoned at Canton . they had issued four edicts against him, and asked the Noble Lord " what he would do if a Chinese landed at Whitehall ?" He said " the Emperor should accede to the treaty be" would propose to him, or take the conee quences." He (Mr. Hogg) did not like to read much of those papers, but if these letters and proceedings of Lord Napier did not excite alarm in her Majesty's Ministers, he was at a loss to know what could do so. But although within twelve months' after Lord Napier's departure, he must have known all this, it was not until sixteen months after the Noble Lord wrote a single line, and the House would he astonished to bear that in his first letter he did not advert to the proceedings of Lord Napier nor impugn his conduct.—(Cheers from the Mi n i s t er i a l b ens ehes.) He knew what was passing in the minds of G ene I m en O PP° - site. The Duke of W e lli ngton was then in e fCce, and there was a fact in c o nn ec ti on with the letter of the • Duke of Wellington, to which attention had not been ca Jled-- 1 " Never did an' individ u al ge t suc h credit fora few .lilies , and after all, there is not much i n them," f said the Hon. i Member for Liskeard ; but he (Mr. Ho gg ) b egge d s a:e- at tention of the House to this fact. The despatches of L t ‘rd Napier arrived at the Foreign-office on the 31st of aa nuary, but one day passed, and the Duke of Well'ing .- ton wrote a letter, desiring his attention to the, in• • structions which had been given him, to confori n to Chinese views, and pay attention to their prejud'ices. And this was not all; the Duke considered this matter of sufficient moment to be brought before the attenti oat or the Cabinet, and the memorandum which had bee n so often alluded to was framed within six weeks aft( x, in which he mentioned his views on the subject to be sub mitted to the Government. Let the House contra! it the conduct of the Duke of Wellington, who wrote this letter one day after the receipt of the despatch, and that t tf the Noble Lord who writes 16 months afterwards.. Fre quest allusions bad been made to the documents relating l'io the period when Mr. Davis and Si- George Robineo n were in office. Matters of form were treated in two I says by Gentlemen Opposite whenever it suited their p arposel If he said the Noble Lord gave undue attention to ) natters; I of form and neglected matters of substance, Hon. ( ;entle -1 men immediately said that matters of form in Chin a were i matters of substance ; and he did not deny that, but he I wished to call attention to the fact that they had n ) t ob i served Chinese usages. Mr. D av i s an d Si Geori Si r e. Ro ; binson were in China as Sup er i n t en d ents tog ether fe r two years, and during the whole of that time her . Ma jesty's Commission was not acknowledged, nor did any communication exist, directly or otherw. se, They stated to the Noble Lord there was no hope of co, ll munieation without abandoning the attempt to commut ii- Cate dire c tly ; Sir Georgeol• R ob i nson stated th e success of the quiescent policy. The e Noble Lord rece i ve d t hi s c a the 6th, an d on the next day the Noble L or d wrote a l e t - Captain ter supersedi ng him. Elliot saw the exped lent Y • of following the ) course George Robin son , an d d and by remainin g at Ma.cao and applying for a pass, he 'obta°innedming id ad e opted by M r . Davis arid .iil • not att f empt to te pre t ts e t i h r e es p a o ge ird s , , the advantage of th '- sect communication, and was going on well ? In his fi rst with the Chi-- nese authorities, but what was die u 11 despatch he said that be would not insist upon t munication, and that he bad obtained leav e to go c orn - Capt.gEo l t re_ to Can_. Can-. i ton. On the 2 1 st of November, 1 837, 1 ~ t iI or ceived a despatch from the Noble Lord dated the le June, in which he was ordered to communicate direetly, and forbidden to use the word " Pin." On the 23d Capt Elliot communicated to the Chinese authorities the de spatches be bad received, and the consequence was, he was i obliged to leave Macao and all communications ceased. He had trespassed long on the House, but he wished to call attention to one more point. It was said, " what instruc tions would you have given ?" But he said, if be could show that a public officer, whose duty it was to givei n• structions had neglected his duty, and given none, that e itself was a substantial charge.—( Hear, hear.) Suppe v e, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Newark ( Mit. G la d stone), the Noble Lord . had not opened the let' ;cm It was said, done so some " g pu,h that argumentas him to say that good d hat did it signify to show that if he ;had would fa have come of it ?" They 1 'light there h r a a d s they teee liked ni !, it was enor gh for i of the Noble Lord, and that blame at g ta g ch e e n d ce to cn hi l'ac f If the Noble Lord h without instructions he was unable • a tol at all, Captai n pa . rt t o a t i . :not to go to 'n C o h r i:l t ; inth,a_teh(eakir icio s g o g l ) ittle .about it to instruct him, he understood it. But that w courd have Lord sent a • .Commissioner ... . Ilse. The N giving authority ; an d ;,., .' r . °Posmg to instruct,Noble "cunt 'lid give to him were. 1., of fact, the iu and ,'.i - , ,fiir Liskeard said he a" tea tt' Denourabt- use ~,.c i ',-.. Ilti f f464 11%1.9.a jocose way of meeting a • np . b ,, aa eor " no . ' - n e d n '' it. , ; eeSeewed:_tlie!6koers excited alarm acid '"e question., t ; not such as tile occasion sPeeili''allY wr°47 re u Meeeber for Edinburgh ask the Itieble Lord's writine /list, thee etkEte Lord bad not •pai . ' 'eathought 1 ired. ' structions a d , and th an c a h what was 11 1'41%9 deSPtI , , p iie ho should fully INVAigh! ag;inst_lhiln. Ile would reada; ! e "liou;;ht- - clat,iil have given alarm to th e ~,„ ve. shown Illri that our le - • - **tif " ' Ile r. e others the onourabl r d rie t t and appreh e n:. it he he sijo.ht nsi on, 1 a u, .. rests in Chi' a er , ! est atte vim 'a-- justify th e ch a ff to , C W ex tra ei , s v , 1 1 % Noble L on ',, and Cllr. Drreass o e, 6ir George lichi in ' w-- -- at st '' L ' e. nson every le Lte e• they _ a wrote snore or less earnestly required instructions. On the 19th of November, 1833, one of those gentlemen wrote —" I feel assured I shall have the honour of receiving in structions by the earliest opportunity, and that I have fully impressed your Lordship with the importance of the sub ject." On the 27th July, 1837, Capt. Elliot wrote—" It is a confusion of terms to call the opium trade a smuggling trade ;" and added, " the Chinese will probably commit some cruel violence, which will make any choice but that of armed interference impossible." On the 3d of February 1537, Captain Elliot sent home the discussions as to legal. ising the opium trade which were rec eived at th e Foreign-office in July. In that letter be said " the opium in future will be conveyed in British boats, and conflicts between the Chinese and British subjects is certain. As to the King's ships, your Lordship, I hope, will consider I am justified in assuming the authority to do what can be done safely, and without inconveniently committing his Majesty's Government towards the relief of a most im portant branch of the trade." Ho read the extract, not to impute blame to Captain Elliot, but to show it was well calculated to excite alarm in the mind of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member for Edinburgh assigned this legaliza tion of the trade as a reason for not writing, because it was expected the thing would be settled. It was easy to say that. It was necessary to refer to papers, otherwise Gentleman opposite complained they dealt in bare asser tions. On February 7, 1837, Captain Elliot sent home edicts, the strongest that had ever issued against British subjects and British trade, commanding their imme diate departure, and, as a great favour, extending the departure for half a month more.—( Hear.) His objection to the course of the Noble Lord was that he had shown an utter inattention to the warnings addressed to him. When these matters had been brought under his notice nothing had been done by him, and while he re ceived solicitations day after day he still continued to withhold his instructions, which might guide those whom he had employed. Sir S. LUSHINGTON said that the Right Hon. Baronet who had brought forward the motion was under very little obligation to the Hon. Member who bad just sat down. The Hon. Member had said that he attribu ted the origin of all the mischief which is now complained of to those very measures which the Right Hon. Baro net had framed, or sanctioned, in 1835. Sir JAMES GRAHAM begged leave to correct the error of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He did not wish to shrink from any responsibility he bad incurred, but he should observe, that with the instructions of 1833 he had nothing to do. Sir S. LUSHINGTON said he was informed by a report given of a debate at that period, and he of course at once admitted the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet. But that was a matter of little importance in the question before the House. He (Sir S. Lushingtona thought that the ablest, the most powerful, and the most eloquent speeches delivered on behalf of the motion under conside• ration were those of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter and the Hon. Member for Newark, both of whom had justified their support of the motion on the ground that the Government had been guilty of culpable neglect in not interfering to prohibit, put down, and extinguish that trade in opium which the Right Hon. Baronet had formerly encouraged.—( Hear, hear.) There were, how ever, graver questions under consideration. It would be the duty of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to explain the course they intended to pursue with respect to the opium trade, and the reasons on which they would attempt to justify their views. The motion of the Right Hon. Baronet was certainly cautiously framed. The Right Hon. Baronet in framing it seemed to have looked to both sides of the Ilouse.—( Hear, hear.) The motion was a charge of want of definite instructions, and those who either think that the opium trade should be put down or maintained might vote for it. There were some Members I'm the City, too, whose support might be gained, and those who think that war is justifiable, and those who think otherwise, might be equally ensnared. He therefore gave the Right Hon. Baronet credit for great Parliamentary skill in spreading out a net as wide as possible, to catch little fish, and great fish, and loose fish.—( Laughter.) He would, however, turn from these considerations to the question of the opium trade itself. There could he no doubt but China had a perfect and complete right, if she thought fit, to prohibit that trade. She had a right to do more—she had a right to say to foreign merchants, if you carry on that trade we will exclude you from all others , and she had, in addition, a right to seize on and punish, according to her own laws. British subjects engaged in it. On th-t subject there could be act doubt. He wished to say a word or two on the principles which should govern our communication with China. The laws of nations could not, on all occa sions, be applied to the people of that country—a people who were an anomaly in history, and, in some respects, so little civilised, while they had made such advances in menu actures and many of the arts of life. Let them look to their relations with that people, and let them direct their attention to the opium trade. That trade had formerly been a monopoly in the hands of the East India Com pany, under whose care it had grown to such a height, that he thought it might be fairly said that not one-thousandth part of the opium of India was used for medicinal purposes. That trade the people of this country had fostered for their own gain. Vey permitted a traffic which led to the misery of thousands in the pursuit of lucre. He knew that it was difficult to determine the nature of the articles in which a trade should be carried on, but he should be allowed to say that with respect to other dangerous commodities, a traffic in which was permitted, the abuse of them was the excep tion, while with regard to opium that abuse was the almost universal rule. Ile should, therefore, declare that he more than doubted whether it was consistent with justice or the mos. sacred obligations which should subsist between nation and nation, and man and man, that they should en deavour by every species of encouragement, to augment and increase trade for the sake of obtaining a pecuniary advantage, while they knew that the certain price and cost would be the destruction of the constitutions and faculties of thousands and thousands of our fellow-men. He would pass to another part of the case which was not to be lost sight of. Was it the right of China to demand the fulfil ment of the obligation to which he had referred? It should be admitted that it was not consistent with the laws and regulations of nations that the people of one country should interfere with the fiscal arrangements of another. Sueh an interference would lead to endless disputes and inconveni ence. That was a principle which should be attended to in the present instance. For the purpose of argument, how ever, he would not hold China bound to that p rinci p le, and be would put the case in the strongest light in favour of China. He would suppose that country had said to Great Britain, " We have no power, from the enormous extent of our coast, to prevent the opium trade, but we have done our best, and we now call on you to assist us for the pur pose of extinguishing it." If such had been the state of the case, he ( Sir S. Lushington) would not say that we should then turn a deaf ear to the prayer of China, or that ' if that country had exerted itself to suppress the trade while she had shown her natural incapacity of doing so, he would not say that in case we should not have come to her assistance. Let them look at the actual state of things and say whether China had, upon any principle of, he would not say international law, but of common justice and equity, in deal ings between nation and nation, a right to prefer such a claim against the British? It was true that opium was prohibited by edict after edict, but up to 1836, these edicts were mere waste paper.—(Hear.) Whether the Emperor had the power to enforce their observance, he did not p r etend to say, but those who wielded the powers of Go verr;ment were bound to appoint just and honourable offi cers to obey their will and to enforce their commandments —( Hears. hear)—and if that trade had gone on flourishing till 1836, end for ought that he knew up to the hour he was addressing that House, it was a mockery to suppose 1 that there could be a semblance of right on the part of the Chinese Government to call upo n En g land to su pp ress it. --(Hear, hear.) With great deference, he would now proceed to apply himself to the arguments of the stlonourable Member for Newark, who said there vs as a period when things became totally changed, anal when it became the duty of the British Government to interfere and prohibit, and put down the opium traffic. The Hon. Member for Newark's was a memorable speech. He should never forget it, nor would, he believed, the people of this country.—( Cheers.) It contained doctrines which he had heard with horror that he could not de scribe.—(Hear.) He (Sir S. Lushington) begged to ask had there been such a time as that which the Hon. Member described when the Government of Canton be came earnest ? Was it in 1836 when the despatch was written, giving the first intimation of the attempt to en force the laws against opium, and when even the first edict had not heen carried with effect ?—( Hear, hear.) The Han. Gentleman who represented us in that country stated in one of the despatches received so late as December, 1838, that there bad been no effectual prevention of that trade.—( Hear.) How was the Government at home therefore to form an opinion whether the edicts were intended to be carried into effect or not ?—( Hear, hear.) They had opposed to the belief that the edict was intended to be carried into effect the practice of forty years. Edict upon edict, mandate upon mandate, couched in all the terms of Chinese m agniloquence, empty as air and ineffec tive as blank paper. —( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had read the despatch received in 1838, in which it was stated that both trades were going on as usual. What was the opinion of those 200 persons who resided in China, wore or less acquainted with the Court of China and the p‘ 'ivileges of China? We re they not n w opiumnot of 'n that in reality and truth the trade was about one . and all opi_ to t. .e put down? Was it not their opinion u sh p a t m o tire r last re p m , ern that all the proceedi n g s were mere Purpose' of doing what had been done for forty years pre ceding, IL irnely, to extort bribes and money for the purpose of carrying .it on ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had ben truly said by th e He n . Member for Bever le y (Mr. Hogg) that we were welt acquainted with the nature of their trade in 1033, and be agreed with him in his recapitulation o t all the evidence given before the Parliamentary C os amittee. But what did Parliament do ? Why, resolved to ,'cecp up the trade. The Duke of : Wellington. at the time We was in office, received the des . patch denouncing the opium trade. He did not mean to • speak at all disparagingly of the Duke of Wellington for what he had done; on the contrary, he thought he had acted prudently, wisely, and as a statesman, in not taking the least notice, or giving the least indication in the letter, o r memorandum,he left of disposition to suppress the opium , trade.—( Hear, hear.) Well, what was it that should in . d,. i ce them to act? The Hon. Member for Newark had ' ted the trade could not be put down without authority, " a ' . ., they had not a shadow of pow er without coming front talab,• 'of Parliament. What po w e rs would the lion. Ac" an c" have given the Superintendent to put it down ? Member Grant that they might have sent out to (I li e Saru'p e r e i n s , pc, he. 4.11.) e ndent to say, " We , the Government, at our tits n ,,ibility, invest you with power to drive the risk and icing , h `on, to drive it fro m Li ntin , and ev e r y trade out of eea. , f China—act on cur order." Why, e por t on the coastavoin Z the pleasure of seeing the Sheriifs n d' t. he Lord Mayor with petitions, com. t h at would be occasioned to British 1 , all those topics enlarged upon i ap n gi d aa e i inn p l i e na n gt d theoe of h si ‘ subjects, , ,1 t' h ay " . b • h t ability by the Hoe s. eed v" t g rea which w ere before -.- osite—( Hear, hear, hear)— bofarb,'a ourable Gentleman . 111) Elliot succeeded, he begged even supposing Captain loes. . ' there :'Would not the cm:- to ask, would it have st o pp ew -nen was man, and so beg sequence s have been, so long as - ey principle that ou g ht as the love of money overcame ct , , ko c hange the scen e of is govern th e h um an breast, only .................. action, and to have taken it to the whole coast of China? What would have been the consequence then ? Why, that they would have made their representative, Superinten dent, or whatever else they might call him, hold out to the Chinese Government that he had power to stop the trade. —(Hear, bear.) Contrary to all that had been done by Captain Elliot and his predecessors, they would have said to the Chinese Government—" We have power and au thority from our Sovereign to put down the trade ; we have succeeded thus far." And what would the Emperor have said ? Why, what he had been saying alreally, with less prudence and with less justice, "If you have this power, and possess this authority, don't tell me of dragging the trade from one place to another, I but extinguish altogether British commerce in that article which is destructive to my subjects, and as ruinous and deleterious in its consequences, whether it be brought into the port of Canton, put into the re ceiving ships at Lintin, or spread and scattered over the eastern coasts of China."—( Hear, hear.) In his ( Sir S. Lushington's) humble judgment, most prudent and wise was the conduct of those who abstained from giving such orders.—( Hear, hear.) Then he came to the question of instructions. The Hon. Member for Beverley said there had been culpable negligence on the part of the Govern. went—that they disgraced the very name of statesmen, excepting of course, as he ought to do, his Right Hon. Friend the Member fer Pembroke.—( Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said the power possessed by the supereargoes was the power to send away British subjects, and to revoke any licences granted to country ships. The Superintendents were to have all the powers not revoked by the Act of Parliament, and surely Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to look and see what were the powers that were not taken away by the Act of Parliament. Did they want power to govern their inter ' course with the Chinese ? They wanted no power with regard to their relations with China. Over whom did they want power ? Over British subjects. They wanted an Admiralty and a Criminal Court, but the power which it had been said was wanting was a power for the purpose of enabling the Superintendent to exercise a control over British trade, and to drive it out of the port of Canton if he thought fit. Would any man have dared to have put forth such a power ? Would any man have dared to violate the resolution of the Committee of that House, or presume to have taken on himself the responsibility of vesting in a single individual 15,000 miles from England, that power which was not given by Parliament?—( Hear, hear. ) He contended that they could not, that they dare not, that they ought not, and no case had been made out in which it would have been wise, prudent, salutary, or calculated to prevent the events which had since occurred.—( Hear, hear.) He now came to another edict. The Hon. Mem ber for Exeter had said what a call there was for instruc tions. He would trouble the House with only one of the despatches to which the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had adverted in such glowing terms. The Hon ourable and Learned Gentlemen had stated that the Government had neglected their duty with reference to the dispatch of Sir George Robinson, dated Ist July, 1835, to be found at page 95, that the Government ought to have invested the Superintendent with power respecting the opium trade, and that the sin lay at their own door. Any body who heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's remarks upon that despatch would not have thought it re lated to the settling of accounts between one British mer chant and his debtor—to the want of power to bring civil ac tions, or to enforce payments between man and man, and was as foreign to the opium trade as if it had been an ordinary despatch from North America.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend was in such a tremendous hurry to make an attack upon the Government, that he leaped over the first paragraph of the answer, which would have explained to him the difficulty that was complained of.—(The Right Honourable Gentleman here read the answer to the despatch, to be found at page 123.) His Hon. and Learned Friend commented on that despatch as if it demanded instructions relating to the regulations of the opium trade, whereas it had no other reference than to the adjustment of commercial matters. It might be said that he ought to have power to settle differences between met chants, and to enforce the payment of their debts. Why then did lion. Gentlemen opposite throw out the Bill which was brought in for that purpose two years ago? It might be true that we had no power to establish Courts of Law, or Criminal Courts, or Courts of Admiralty in the Chinese dominions ; but if we had no such right or power we had no remedy for these evils, and they could not charge his Noble Friend that he did not provide a remedy. The Hon, Member for Newark had said that Ministers had no right to ask them (the Oppo sition) to show what ought to have been done. But as an omission is the neglecting to do that which was con venient and necessary, it could not be said that there was , an o mission in not doing that which nobody had shown was either fit or necessary. The Duke of Wellington showed wisdom in what he had done in reply to Lord Na. pier, and he showed still more wisdom in what he had not done.—( Cheers.) Lock to what Lord Napier recom mended—first, to break off the intercourse with China; next, the employment of force to compel the trade ; 1 and, thirdly, actual hostilities with the empire. The Duke of Wellington did enough when he referred Lord Napier to the comprehensive instructions, which laid down general rules for his conduct when particular rules were impossible.—( Hear; hear.) The Duke of Wellington's example was followed, and the Government did right in following it. From the death of Lord Napier, on the 12th February, 1835, nothing occurred which required more specific instruction ; but it was charged upon his Noble Friend that he did not pass a censure upon Lord Napier when he was in his grave.—(Hear, bear.) With respect to the justifiableness of enforcing our claims of reparation upon China by means of war, he would say that he should greatly deplore that any neglect en the part of the British Government had led to the la mentable events that had occurred.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Yet he asked, were there measures within the competence of any Government—he would say of Parliament itself—to prevent those calamitous events ?—( Cheers.) If the Go vernment had neglected specifically to instruct the Super intendent to take this or that course, by which those events might have been prevented—nothing, according to the principles of justice and eternal truth, could justify them in having recourse to hostile measures.— ( Hear, hear.) In saying so, he looked to the law of na tions, the law of God, and the law of man.—( Cheers.) He knew that his Hon. Friend the Member for Newark was honourable, and humane, and spotless ; nevertheless he could not but express his abhorence of the doctrines which his Hon. Friend laid down last night. His Hon. Friend gave his opinion that the Chinese authorities were justified in the seizure of every man in the Factory. On what ground could they seize those men, who were then under the sanction of their own unbroken usage, and for no crime of their own ? What principle could jus tify the Chinese in seizing upwards of two hundred unoffending men ; and by starving them, and by working on the feelings of their countrymen afar off, induce the' latter to sacrifice their own property, which was out of the reach of the Chinese, to save their innocent countrymen ? —( Cheers.) That was a proceeding which no usage, no respect for the barbarian customs of China, could allow England to submit to.—( Cheers.) He insisted that it was a gross outrage, a grievous sin, a mortal offence, for which England ought to demand reparation by force.— ( Loud cheers.) But what followed next ? The expulsion of the British from Canton—then from Macao, which was in the possession of the Portuguese. What follows next? That practice which, since it is first re corded 2,500 years ago, has always been regarded with universal reprobation by mankind.—( Cheers.) Not having the courage to resist the British in obtaining water, they poisoned the water.—( Hear.) The words of his Hon. Friend were still ringing in his ears. He (Mr. Glad stone) said the Chinese ordered them to quit Macao ; when that was not done they deprived them of provisions ; and then when they would not go, " of course they poi soned the waters."—(Cheers.) Yes, the words were, " of course they poisoned the waters."—( Loud cheers.) Under the circumstances he (Sir S. L.) considered it was the duty, as well as .the right, of England to insist upon reparation.—( Hear, hear.) Let it not be supposed that he was an advocate for a war of blood and tears. His Right lion. Friend (Mr. Macaulay) in glow ing terms had described the atrocities of the Chinese, but he advocated no unnecessary shedding_ of blood. Great Britain was not going to war as some represented—wick edly and falsely represented—( Cheers)—for the purpose of enforcing the opium trade. It was so represented for base, mean, and party purposes, by those who ought to know, and did know, the falsehood of the state ments.—(Loud cheers.) But Britain went to war for the purpose of requiring reparation for outrages committed, and endeavouring, on the principles of justice and mutual advantage, to establish an amicable trade.— ( Hear, hear.) That was his hope, and he saw no reason to fear for the result, for he believed that it was the nature of the Chinese Government to yield to intimic'elion.— ( Hear.) He had now stated his opinion upon the opium trade, and his reasons for believing that the charges against Ministers were not substantiated, and ho thought that when the people became acquainted with the complicated circumstances of this question, they would agree with him that no foresight or precaution would have prevented the calamities that had occurred ; and that no instructions which could have been given, whether re lating to the opium trade or not, would have had the effect of preserving the pacific relations with China. It was in the nature of trade, and especially of a trade so long carried on, and desired by the Chinese people, that it could not be suppressed without a rupture. When it ap peared that even the punishment of death could not pre vent the Chinese from indulging in the use of opium, it seemed to him to be little short of madness to suppose that any order of the Superintendent, or any measure of the British Government, could have suppressed it. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman sat sown amidst loud cheering. Lord SAND ON with unfeigned regret found himself called upon to follow his Right Hon. Friend, as no one could feel more than himself how unequal he was to remove any impression which the speech they had just heard had made upon the House ; but having taken a deep interest in briefly tire qis G a s : i t o h n e , o b o e m would t e t r d o s u u b b l j e e t c he t w Hse ou o l u dall w o i w th . hi l s view ieh as cpd the eloquent denunciations of his Right Honourable Friend would induce the Government to tun their attention to the subject, and if the motion had no other effect he should consider it important, however small might be the minority. Suppose that the Chinese Government had connived at the opium trade when carried on at Canton, and when no more than 4,000 or 5,000 chests a year were imported, the question as sumed a different aspect when that trade spread over the whole coast, and had increased to t 15,000 chests a year. If there was any doubt in the mind of the Government in 1838 as to the course which the Chinese Government would adopt, it ought t.o have been removed by the de spatch of Captain Elliot, dated 4th December, 1837, and received April, 1838. The Noble Lord then read an extract from the despatch, in rehich Cap tain Elliot expressed an opinion that up to ''' t time there had been room to suppose that the edict, like those which preceded it, was merely formal. Then he went on to forward these edicts, having prefaced then, by warnings such as be had stated, sae referred to the la- guege he had himself used to the Governov a Gun ton, which, in his (Lord Sandon's) opinion, was one of this greatest charges against the Government, inasmuch as he thought they had sacrificed the character of the British nation and the British Sovereign by the course they had adopted. The Neble Lord then proceeded to read several extracts from the despatches of Capt. Elliot to Lord Palmerston, for the purpose of showing the urgency with which that officer required the interference of the British Government, and that notwithstanding that urgency the Noble Lord had neglected to adopt any steps, leaving Capt. Elliot in Canton totally without any power. They had been told that the Duke of Wellington had done nothing during the short time he was in office but re fer Lord Napier to the instructions which he had al ready received. Now he (Lord Sandon) considered that was not a fair statement, for the Duke of Wellington in his short despatch, for which he had received no small blame, stated as follows, and he thought the best way to make the House acquainted with it was to read the whole of it. " Your despatch of the 9th of August, and your letters marked ' private,' addressed to Lord Palmerston, to the 21st of August, were received at this office on Saturday the 31st ult. I learn that a vessel will sail for Canton from the River Thames this afternoon ; and I avail myself of that opportunity ear nestly to recommend to your Lordship's attention the in structions of Lord Palmerston of the 25th January, 1834 ; and most particularly the 18th and 19th Articles of the general instructions which you have received under the Royal Sign Manual. It is not by force and violence that his Majesty intends to establish a commercial in tercourse between his subjects and China ; but by the other conciliatory measures so strongly inculcated in all the instructions which you have received." The Duke of Wellington, therefore, had seized the first moment to send out that despatch, for the purpose of call ing the attention of Lord Napier to the pacific nature of the interference required by his Majesty's Government. But that was not all that the Duke of Wellington had done. In the same month the Noble Duke had drawn up a scheme of advice to Lord Napier. They had been told by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, that the memorandum was exceedingly vague and meagre.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that statement, for in it a judgment was passed on the question of communication between her Majesty's Government and the Chinese authority, in which the Noble Duke differed with the Noble Lord. It also authorized a plan for forming a Court having ju risdiction over the British subjects in China, a subject which had always been matter of complaint by the autho rities at Canton. His Right Honourable Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, although he had de nounced the trade in opium in language as unmea sured as that used by the Chinese, of which he complained, had not, in his subsequent observations held out much hope or encouragement to those who were anxious to see the opium trade put an end to. The Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had repro bated the opium trade. If the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman was sincere, as doubtless he was, did he recom mend exactly the course calculated to repress the trade ? Why the Gentleman opposite asked if the British Govern ment were to keep up a preventive service along the whole coast of China ? Certainly not. But might not measures be taken to repress the trade in the waters of Canton ? And to effect this might not the Superintendent have the powers (with certain modifications adapted to the altered circumstances) formerly possessed by the supercar goes ? The Chinese Government had repeatedly com plained of the inconsistency of sending officers with ap rently the same position and the same duties as the super cargoes, yet with no definite and regular powers; and the Chinese Government had repeatedly complained of this as an imposition, and called upon the British Government to give their officers power to repress the unlawful traffic in Canton port. Gentlemen opposite said it was no use to attempt the repression of the trade, unless it could be stopped all along the coast. But the fact was that the disputes had arisen solely from the smuggling in the Canton waters. On this ground the Chinese Government had complained, and after repeated warnings and reiterated threats had resorted to a course which he (Lord Sandon) would not entirely justify, but which certainly ad mitted of considerable palliation, seizing the Bri tish merchants.—( Hear, hear.) Nor did he know indeed, if this course might not be thought to be in acoord ance somewhat with the abstract laws of justice, or the wages of nations. It was said that the Chinese had con founded the innocent with the guilty. But were the Go vernment not about to do so? Had it not been done already, with the slaughter of some hundreds of Chinese, innocent and unoffending ? It was not true that the Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) had justified the poisoning the wells ; such a course could never have eons mended itself to his known generosity and humanity of disposition.—( Hear, hear.) But let it be recollected that the Chinese had notified their intention of it. ( Sir J. Hobhouse—" To the Chinese themselves.") At all events, it was not shown that it had been done with the authority of the Chinese Government, and was at variance with the usual humanity of the Chinese. The Noble Lord proceeded to quote autho• rities as to the pernicious influence of opium. It was the duty as well as the interest of this country to extirpate the growth of this accursed drug. He had said enough to show that there had been gross neglect on the part of her Majesty's Government, after long and con filmed warnings ; the warnings were distinct and repeated, and given in the strongest language, even by that officer whom tee Government still trusted, and that negligence was not to be rubbed off by any declaration respecting the distance of the operations, and the non-necessity of clear and explicit instructions. What they complained of was that insteuctions had been refused after be ing asked by their own officer, time after time. It was impossible that that calamity could ever have arisen had the Duke of Wellington been in office. He I could not hay, allowed a period of four years to pass with . out having taken some course to put an end to the exaspe rations which were daily becoming worse. His side of the House was taunted with not giving their opinion of what ought to be done. He considered that it was quite enough for them to give their opinion upon those matters which they knew. Let the Government come forward and tell that House what their intentions were with respect to the opium trade, and he and his friends would tell them whe ther they approved of it or not. He trusted that the Right Hon. President of the Board of Control, who, he saw, was about to address the House, would give them some informa tion, which it was allowed upon all hands was the hinging point, so that the House could come to a definite conclu sion on the subject. Ile considered that they were quite jnstified in charging the Government with being the cause of that great calamity by their gross neglect of their own officer. Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE said at least the House would be spared from hearing much which he otherwise should have thought it his duty to have addressed to them, in consequence of the able and convincing speeches which had been delivered by some Hon. Friends behind him, and he trusted that the Noble Lord who had just sat down, would not think that he in any way under-rated the im portance of what constituted the main point of the charge against the Government, if he deferred until a later period those observations, which he would think it proper to make with regard to the opium question. He agreed with the Noble Lord that it was to the question of the opium trade that the Government ought to address itself, and although he could not agree with him, that his Noble Friend or the Government deserved censure upon that question, still he admitted that it became any Government entrusted to administer the affairs of this great country, seriously to apply their attention to that question. He had attended most carefully to the speech of his Right Hon. Enemy—(Laughter)—he would call him his Right Hon. i Friend, and he could assure him that latter term was the one which gave him most pleasure, for he had a lively re collection of his old subaltern days, when his Right time Friend was Minister, and he ( Sir J. Hobhouse) was Secre tary at War under him, and feelings of friendship were then engendered that no political opposition could ever efface.—( Hear, hear.) The importance of the question under discussion could not be overrated, it involved not only the honour, the interests, but the character of the country—not only national character but personal charac ter—for if, for a petty squable—for that which might have been prevented by the giving up some mere points of form, we were about to engage ourselves in a war with a nation consisting of 350,000,000 of human creatures, in conse quence of any neglect of the Government's, the Hon Baronet was not only justified he the motion which he had brought under the consideration of the House, but he would have been perfectly justified had he gone a great way farther. They were now engaged in a struggle, of which it was impossible to increase the magnitude by any embel lishments. It was impossible to overrate the probable con sequences of that struggle, and, if they were engaged in it by any neglect on the part of the Noble Lord, her Ma jesty's Government did not deserve the vote under the con sideration of the House, even if it were carried against them—they deserved far more—they deserved impeach ment—they deserved to be branded with infamy to the ut most extent which the United Parliament of England could inflict upon a misgoverning Administration. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, that there should have been a distinct propo sition made by his Right Hon. Friend—that something should have been done to avert that great calamity —some thing ought to have been done to rescue the country from that groat misfortune into which it had been plunged by the alleged neglect of his Noble Friend, and they should pronounce that the contest with China was unjustifiable, and that,R ig th h e t re H fo o r n e . , F t r h ie e n y d w w e o n u t ld to in n t o e t r h f i e n r g e t t e ha p t r t e he prevent motion it—( ofC h h e i e s rs. ) He must be p e rmitted to say at all that was practicable, except that to which he would take the liberty of alluding shortly. Suppose the motion of the Hon. Baronet were carried, did it settle anything with respect to the claims of those whose property had been seized on the waters of Canton ? It did not.—( Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend said it did not touch that, because there was a Committee sitting upon it; but if the honour, the interests, ;.he character, and the power of this great empire were at stake, would they—ought they—to wait for the decision of a Committee ?—( Cheers.) If the Government had so basely and outrageously mismanaged their trusts that they had engaged the country in a contest because they had been asleep, would they wait for the de- II Hon.i 11, or anything respecting what de cision of a Committee, which m i g ht also have been asleep —a Committee the naming o f which had not been gone into for ten or twelve d a y s after it had been ap pointed ? The seizure of the o p ium was the cardinal point upon which all tu rned, and it should be set tled, not by a reference to a Committee, it ought to be settled by a decisive vote of the House.s any of Common s R s i at Friend ti e e.----C did not he callers. ) upon The them t was to be done with China. Did it ask whether w e were to go to war with China? Did it take away any c ause to prevent that war, or tell the Governor-Genera l of India that it was his duty to ( motion to settle of his such h t t suspend those operations —those preparations le of the G ovan: - ' been undertaken upon the iesponsibi y rneut? Not one of those things would the motion do if which h a d . carried.—(Loud cheers.) ey said the miseldaf was already incurred, yet all they wanted was to try to get a ey pur oses, o vote against the Gove rnment for havin g been the cage of that war, which the y said was a calamit y ; yet they did eething whatever, except tryh ing did not to g e t a vote, he would not say fq7 K p ject to their acting for party perposee—ifp t4qUght with) all the evidence he had had of their character and conduct thee they had a right to act in any way they pleased to dis place tiie peeocet gdmitiistration. Having admitted that he trusted that he was not speaking dispary,g;ngly cf hi; Right Hon. Friend's motion, if he said that he recognised nothing in the vote but a mere party attempt, nothing in the world.—( Hear.) The lion. Gentleman opposite had not only a perfect right to make that attempt, but they would laugh in his face if he said anything but this, that the House could see, and the whole country from one end to the other could see, that they cared no more for China in the matter than they did about Canada—(Cheers) —or any of the points which they had " agitated," to use the expression of his Right Hon. Friend, who said they had transferred agitation from England to Canton, upon many other occasions.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time, he would take the liberty to recommend to his Right Hon. Friend to take the advice of the Right Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, who, in his very powerful speech, observed that they should not trifle with questions of peace and war.—( Hear, hear.) He ( Sir John Hobhouse) said the same thing.—(Cheers.) Do not trifle with them. Have squabbles about Registration Bills—( Hear, and laugh ter)—or about the New College, or any other point of domestic policy, but let them not trifle with questions of peace and war. He would not only give the Right Hon. Baronet that advice, but would also advise him to follow the example which he himself had set on a former occasion. It did so happen that in the last Session of Parliament, just as it was known that this country was about to engage in a very hazardous enter prise, and at a distance almost as great as that at which they were now about to be engaged—it did so happen that his Right Hon. Friend, the Hon. Member for Pem broke, who prima facie appeared to consider that her Majesty's Government could never be in the right, had given notice of a motion for taking into consideration the expedition which was about to be under : taken to the westward of the Indies, and of which he, with his scanty information, naturally enough scanty, and know ing nothing of the expedition except the character of those who had originated that armament, conceived that its re sult would not have been favourable. What happened ? Did he mention it to reproach his Right Hon. Friend ? Far from it; it would be ungenerous in him to do so. But his better genius upon consideration or the hints he might have received from other quarters, to which they had heard allusions made in the course of the debate, from persons who know something of India, and at any rate persons who would have told him (he did not know that they had done so), that when this country was about to be engaged in a great struggle, in which soldiers and sailors were to take part—the enterprise being one of difficulty and danger, it would be as well, unless a person thought and knew ho was quite right, not to embarrass those pro ceedings, nor to damp the ardour of those who were to bear the peril and brunt of the enterprise.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke, with a discretion which did him honour, and the accomplished leaders who sat near him (with the exception of that little notice), forbore, with much wisdom and discretion, from saying anything which might damp and discourage the efforts about to be made by their gallant troops. —( Hear.) He wished the Right Hon. Gentleman had observed the same discretion on the present point.— ( Hear, and a laugh from Mr. Thesiger.) He did not know why there was that laugh, but if they thought that he ( Sir J. H.) was afraid of the result, he would tell them that he was not in any way ; and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been as long in the House as him self, he would reserve his laugh for a better occasion, Now allow him to ask what would be the result to the nation if the present motion succeeded ? He had a right to put that question. Supposing he succeeded in his motion, and by that success he should find that other persons had the administration of public affairs, what did he anticipate from that result ?—( Hear.) He did not mean to say that they had a right to ask in what way the contest was to be carried on, but he would ask him did he mean to say there would be any war at all? Did he mean to say that, from the information before the House, supposing the Hon. Gentlemen opposite were to have the conduct of public affairs to-morrow, and he would ask the Hon. Gentleman near him—did they intend, or did they not intend, to conduct that struggle as if it were a national struggle in which they were engaged ? He had a right to ask that. —( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had said nothing that could lead him to suppose that if he and his party were to be seated to morrow, they did not intend to carry on war, if war it was to be. y The speeches of those who followed him were different; and the Hon. Member for Exeter said that it was a contest in which nothing could be reaped except disgrace, and so tar did he appear to be pleased with the conduct of the Chinese, that it was almost impossible to collect whether or not he intended to support any Ad ministration that would continue the struggle. The Hon. Member for South Wiltshire, who followed, said that every aggression of the Chinese being entirely for gotten, and not a word being said of what his fellow-countrymen had suffered —he also seemed to doubt whether or not they were engaged in a contest which should be nationally and honourably maintained. Then came the Hon. Member for Wood stock, and that Hon. Gentleman made use of language of the most unmeasured kind with respect to the dealings with the Chinese of late years, and all he could collect from him was, that if they went to war, it would be a war only of disgrace. After him came the Hon. Member for Newark, and with all his respect for him, he must say that there were some propositions contained in his speech— there were two or three things, he would not say that slipped from him, because they came from him as delibe rately as ever did opinions from the mouth of any man— but something was said by him which gave him ( Sir J. Hobhouse) an impression that it would be impossible, with these opinions, that ho should for one moment support any Administration which thought of carrying on the contest. If the House were about to consent to the present vote they ought to make up their minds what the result would be. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke had certainly left it an open question for the next Cabinet. —( A laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Exe ter having said that retreat was impossible, the course to be pursued by the new Administration would naturally be that which was pursued by the present. He had heard with great surprise his Hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth say that he did not understand why they had not proposed a decided vote of peace or war. He could not help calling him his excellent and innocent friend—( A laugh)—who seemed quite astonished that instead of coming forward boldly they had put a vague resolution upon the paper, stating that there was some want of power and instructions which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have given. His Honourable Friend had been so long in China, that he did not seem to know the practice of the House of Commons. His Honourable Friend ought to know what had been so well expressed by the Hon. Mem ber for Liskeard, that the motion had nothing to do with peace or was, and should know that it was not possible that those who did not like to vote against the national honour or national character, and who did not like to vote against the opium trade in China, still might be anxious to give a vote against those who happened to sit upon his ( Sir J. C. Hobhouse's) side of the House.—( Hear, hear.) If they were guilty of neglect and inattention in that great matter, they ought to be visited with the severest punish ment. Still he thonght that some little blame ought to attach to those who, in such an emergency withheld their assistance from the crisis of the State, and who endeavoured as far as in them lay, to paralyse the exertions of the country, now embarking in a great and doubtful struggle. If they could correct what had been done it might be satis• factory to the country, but he did not see how they could, and, therefore, he must suppose that if they failed in show ing that the present Government had neglected its duty, then they were amenable to the country for the course they were at present pursuing. What was the charge that the Right Hon. Baronet had brought forward? It was that they had not sufficient foresight to know what the Em peror of China was going to do. Was the present the first occasion in which they had been engaged in controversies with that empire ? Far from it ; and he thought it was a great mistake of the Right Hon. Gentleman to talk of the pre sent, as the first collision between the English and the Chinese at Canton. They had taken place over and over again, and several Parliamentary reports had been laid on the table on the subject. In fact, the whole his tory of the intercourse with China was composed of dif. ferences, from their English endeavouring to obtain terms which the Chinese authorities would never concede to them. Why was this the first occasion on which com plaints were made of their conduct of the affairs of China ? A greater failure than that of Lord Napier could not pos sibly have occurred, and the instructions sent out to him were those to which the Right Honourable Baro net was a party. Collisions took place, and much more serious ones took place on that occasion. The British frigates went up the river, and forced the Bocca Tigris, and there was loss of life and degradation of character, and the whole of the circumstances were worse in every respect than those of which complaints were now made. —( Hear, hear.) Ho would beg leave to ask of the Right Hon. Baronet, how came it that no complaint was made of those proceedings, to which he himself was a party, so far as the instructions went ? In page 42, they would find that Lord Napier complained of those instructions, and said they were, such as it, was difficult, if not impossible, to act upon. That Noble Lord fell a victim to the Chinese—he would not say to his instructions, but they all knew the result, con cerning which no complaint had been made. If Hon. Members would take the trouble of looking at the transac tions in which Lord Napier was engaged, they would find that there was the same ground of complaint against the Chinese, and that the Chinese had the same grounds of complaint against them.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had been said the whole of this transaction depended on the first instructions given to the first Superintendents at China. What was the essence of these instructions ? To maintain all peaceable and friendly feelings, and avoid everything that could occasion irritation. It was said by the Right Hon. Gentleman there were two errors in these instructions—namely, that as to taking up a resi dence at Canton, and as to the mode of communication with the Chinese authorities. But these he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) would show to be no errors at all, and his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary at War had already disposed of them. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodstock (Mr. Thesiger) said the Secretary at War was wrong in saying those concessions were made, but it was most distinctly admitted that Capt. Elliot did go to reside at Canton, and it was twice admitted that evening that the p o i n t o f co mmunication with the Government was conceded. Now it was right to remind the House, the authority of that great man, the Duke of Wellington, w as mentioned as giving a decided opinion. These points ought not to be insisted upon ; bet he found his Grace's authority was most distinctly contravened by those indivi duals who had been alluded to so frequently in the course of the debate, Mr. Davis and Sir George Robinson. Sir George, indeed, differed somewhat from Mr. Davis, and went to Lintin, to reside there in the centre of the opium smuggling trade, and there, no doubt, lent his authority to it. With respect to the authority of these two gentlemen, if time permitted he could quote that of the British mer chants at Canton ; all of whom decided a residentSuperia tend at Canton was necessary. The Right Hon. Gentleman, dwelt much on the want of greater powers, and the point had been argued at great length, but it did not appear Captain Elliot thought there was any defici ency in thin. it might be said Captain Elliot did interfere, and success_ fully, but much was said of his Noble Friend's refusing hint powers after he had asked for them. When the Rightg Hon. Gentleman opened the disclissiw, ,t,- said h e thourslit he should be taunted with the part he had takeo in THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1840. these matters—with the part he had taken in the discussion on the Chinese Courts, when he had said " in ternational law was against the principles of the nation, and that the power of the Superintendent ought to be taken away." He should like to know, after this encouragement given by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, what chance the Noble Lord had of persuading Parliament to give the necessary powers to the Superintendent next year.—( Cheers.) The Bill was withdrawn, and he had recommended that application should be made to the Chinese authorities on the subject, ant the Honourable Member for Newark had last night asked why they dill not apply to the Chinese Authorities. He would ask that Hon. Member to recollect what chance they would have had if an application had been made to the Chinese Authorities in 1839, and no applica tion could have been made to them before, of obtaining any assistance to carry their object into effect.—( Cheers. ) In truth he was inclined to agree with the Right Hon. Ba ronet, that any attempt by Bill to make a law intended to be of force within the Chinese empire would be against in ternational law, and such as ought not to be consented to. That Bill, however, was only asking for an extension of the powers already granted by the Order in Council, by giving the Superintendent power to try civil as well as criminal cases. He now came to the great charge which had been brought against them respecting the opium trade : they had been charged with want of foresight and precaution respecting this trade ; and allow him to ask whether all the circumstances attending this trade were not known to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite long and long ago ?—(Cheers.) Allow him to ask if all the circumstances connected with the opium trade were not well known to the Duke of 'Wellington ?—( Loud eheers.) This was not by any means a new question. A Commit tee had sat in 1810 to discuss the question of the renewal of tha East India Company's Charter, and this Committee had examined into the circumstances of the opium trade. They had made a report respecting the opium trade, Had they said anything against the smuggling of opium ? They had not.—(Cheers.) A Committee had again sat on the same subject in 1832. Did they say anything re specting the opium trade and opium smuggling ? They did; witnesses were examined, the atrocities of the trade were fully exposed, reports were made, Captain Shepherd and others were examined on the subject,and all the circum stances of the trade were perfectly well known. What said the Committee of 1810? That the opium trade was liable to be affected by many contingencies, and for this reason was of a very fluctuating nature. What was the object of the Committee of 1832? Now, it was necessary that this re port should be read to the House, because the Govern ment was charged with all the iniquities of the opium trade, when that trade had been sanctioned by the House of Commons during a long series of years. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the Report, which stated that the East India Company would not be justified in abandoning so important a source of revenue as that derived from opium, more especially when it was recollected that the greater portion of that tax was levied upon the foreign consumer, and that therefore, on the whole, it was a less objectionable source of revenue than any other. But that was not all. When the subject came on for discussion in the House of Commons, his friend, Lord Glenelg, then Mr. Grant, entered into a long account of every circum stance connected with the manner of carrying on this I trade, of the manner in which this opium was smuggled into China, of the way in which the local authorities not only connived at, but actually encouraged this contraband traffic. There was not a single circumstance connected with the opium trade which, on that occasion, was not fully detailed to the House by Mr. Grant, and while Mr. Grant was making this speech in 1833, the Right Honourable Baronet, his then colleague, was sitting next him.—( Cheers.) Did the Right Hon. Gentleman give any symptom of disappointment of the trade at that time ?—( Cheers.) How were the Government to con duct their affairs—how were they know when their policy was disapproved of by Parliament or by the Right Hon, Gentleman ? The best proof that this trade was not then disapproved of by him was that he was the colleague of Lord Glenelg when he made that speech—( Cheers) — that he was sitting next him when he described all the atrocities and iniquities of the opium traffic, and his Right Hon. Colleague the Member for Pembroke sat mute— ( Cheers)—said not a single syllable against the traffic, but reserved all his virtuous indignation for the presen time. —( Continued cheering.) But did any body else say any thing ? Yea, one solitary gentleman lifted up his voice against the traffic. Mr. Buckingham did get up and ex pose the whole ; his speech was a most will:, ing one—( A laugh)—he made a direct charge_ against the East India Company, that the cultivation of opium was not the only monopoly si,hic:ll they enjoyed, that by means of their mo nopoly they frequently raised the price of it 1,000 per cent., that they considered it of such importance that the Superintendent of the cultivation of opium had a larger salary than the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and all this for no other purpose than for that of smuggling it into China. Mr. Bucking ham had urged those points in the face of the House of Commons, and the Right Honourable Baronet opposite. He said that there was a monopoly of the poppy in the hands of the East India Company, and he charged them with its iniquities. No one, however, at ose to offer a word in re ply, because it was said that Mr. Buckingham had been ill-used by the Company, and that he therefore brought his charges against them. Not a word, however, had been said on that occasion by the Right Hon. Baronet, or by the Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, who was at the time a member of the House, and what was more, who had been a Member of the Committee which sat in 1832 on the subject of the trade in Opium—who had heard all the evidence on the subject, and all the iniquity of thole transactions which were demoralizing the people of China. —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, did not at the time to which he had alluded, object to the trade on the grounds of morality and religion.— ( Hear.) That Noble Lord's indignation against the trade, like that of hisißight Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), had been reserved for a more suitable and convenient occasion. For his part he did not intend to palliate the opium trade ; but it should be known at the same time that the present Government were not then the guilty parties. No, let his Right Hon, Friend change the motion, and let him not bring his charge against her Majesty's present advisers. The Hon. Member for Newark had said last night that the present rupture with China had been produced by a long series of misconduct on the part of successive British Governments; and if that were so, the Hon. Member should not pass a vote of censure on the Ministry exclusively. There was another which he wished to advert to. The Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had said that the Govern ment had reason to expect that the opium-trade would be suppressed. Te eject was that that trade was known to have been in a state of great uncertainty, but he thought that his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was perfectly justified in not taking any steps with respect to that trade till ho was fully informed on the subject. The first dispatch on the subject of the trade had been received in Feb. 1833, and his Noble Friend afterwards made it known to parties engaged in the trade that if they suffered any loss they should themselves answer for it. It would, however, have been monstrous on the part of the British Government to have attempted forcibly to prevent the carrying on of that trade as there was no instance of one nation interfering with the fiscal arrangements of another.—( Hear, hear.) That was the whole case. He wished to ask if Hon. (Members opposite would say that the British Government should have passed a law making it penal for English subjects to try to smuggle any article into the empire of China.—( Hear, hear.) The. present Government could not be held responsible for that which no Government could possibly effect. The charge against them was that they had not contrived to make an Order in Council which would prevent British subjects from smuggling with another country. That could not be done, and his Noble Friend had fully discharged his duty by warning British subjects that if they continued the opium trade with China they should do so at their own risk. So'far was Captain Elliot from thinking at the time that the Chinese Government was in earnest, that he wrote to Lord Palmerston on the 2d of January, 1839, and said ho " did not believe that the Emperor would suppress the trade, but that he would materially check it." How then was it possible that his Noble Friend (Lord Palmerstonl should foresee that, on the 22d of March, 1639, Commis missioner Lin would come down to Canton with all those edicts?—( Hear, hear.) Even then —even after the publi cation of the edicts, nobody could have supposed that Lin would have resorted to such atrocities ?—( Hear. He ( Sir J. C. Hobhouse) was astonished to hear the Ho nourable and Learned Member for Exeter say that whether the Chinese Government legalised the trade or not, the English Government had a paramount duty to put it down; that assertion showed (he must say) very little knowledge of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) What had been the effect of the repressive measures adopted by the Commissioner? Confinement, starvation, and poison ing ? To show what little effect they had, he would read letters which he had received from Lord Auckland. [The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to read from some papers which he held in his hand, bnt he read them and commented on them in so low a tone, that Members im mediately behind him and in other parts of the House, called out repeatedly, " Speak out, speak out.") The Noble Lord said, " Under all such circumstances, the opium is rising in price, and some of the merchants are making fortunes by the sales. One small cruiser came in last week with seven lass o ents f ht eaa S nde y oao c t pbn e tve e eredy I s ate i on i t v et e eteh r r , ,oa' that that was Hhtehee purpose." N a r r e o m a b l I I - arma ment, nrOdto,osl/ai. light—(H — dh, tc vessels,H\eva i r t , h r h ac e rse a p r et . hc ) I te to b —(Cries of " Speak ou t, spea k out.) The letter stated :ottreyi rpdohetistnaeosth t ytpw h ehet a coooica t l rffbetde t t a t h at Ito, Britishi obtain time ne:: tbmedpheoiepiseunntt fast -sailing no a th d guocge a ftlp possibility hi oo Government,pt tp e tphp adapted nseHuet knownfi httg o ehte ahhrteri that tradet, ti uta h rbbta e ui , under con veyanceebtedoteasewhsiurnse.iafi being thought he was speaking loud enough.—( A laugh.) eb e u r mm v t s s e brigs od.h ; s _ tf s ori ' e ttwawh : b dm opb t H h pi u,eeitiquite were ut ytamr:ds trusted so s endhnt pee o o bd mf as tsbt iWithtohni r sb lucrative oa au ficient to state that of the whole of the'opium marnoutsfacolfutTle Peninsula subject to B r iti s h contro l , in India but 20,000 c h ests were grown in the p whilst % chests 1 000 were grown in the ind e p en d ent terr i tories; and all the at tempts tempts to limit by treaty the growth of the poppy and the ma nufacture of opium in these te - . ritories had failed. But if they had succeeded, h e as k e d , could they exterminate . the s Si ir r J J. G H R o A B H I A. I o M u — s N E o.- 00 ( n growth of the poppy ? C tin h u e e e d rs 2His Right Hon. Friend said with candour that they could . not. If they could extermi na t e i t i n their own dominions, at a great sacrifice, and not w ith out c i v i l commotion, it would flourish in other t err i tor i es. But all attempts to put down the trade had u n if orm l y failed (e a r ' that )H e b t a n d e n taken proceeded to read extr ac t s to s h ow the increase i-i place in the consumption of opium in spite of the restrictions. Now as to the conduct of Captain Elliot, let it he re collected, h e h a d b een placed in very difficult ch cum stances.—( Opposition cheers.) He had to do with a 1 community much disturbed by party spirit. He had con ' ducted himself with humanity, caution, prese nce of mind, 1 and ought t o b e c h eere d an d supporte d by the approval of that Ho use .—( Ch eers. ) A s to the absence of British men of war, that could not have produced the catastrophe; it had not prevented it in Lord Napier's time, and tits East India Company had strongly r eprobated the, practk,o of thus exciting the jealousy and alarm of the Chinese.— ( Hear, hear.) 11 • now felt it his duty to close. —( Oppo- sition cheer:, re-echoed by Ministerial.) He had only this to say, as to the character of the Chinese. He wished not to enter on the cause with any idea derogatory to that na tion—he only relied on the justice of our cause, and he trusted that by the proper vindication of our honour we should benefit not ourselves merely but the world.—( Loud cheers.) Sir R. PEEL then rose and said, Sir, considering that the House has been for six nights engaged in debates ou the Corn-laws, and on China, I can - hardly be surprised at those occasional manifestations of impatience which we have observed this night.--( Hear, hear.) Bet I entreat Hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the magnitude of' this question—( Hear, bear)—and that it appears, though no communication has been made to you by the Crown , - though there has been no message from the Throne, upon the subject—(Cheers)—yet from the intelligable declara tions of two Cabinet Ministers, we are on the ere of a war, with a nation justly described by the Hon. Member for Portsmouth, as, in point of resources, exceeding all Euro pean States—a nation, whose population amounts to 350,000,000—( Hear)—a nation, including in a word, one third of the whole world's population.—( Cries of " Hoar.) Can we be surprised then that the House should be anxious to inquire into the causes of such a consumme• tion.—( Hear, hear.) Oh, says the President of the Board of Control, one of the parties mainly responsible for the evil—for God's sake diseues anything but China.-- (Cheers. ) Contest the registration—( Cheers)—take a division upon Maynooth.—( Laughter and cheers.) Per haps the Hon. Gentleman would advise us to occupy our time on the Peel Club at Glasgow—(Great laughter and cheers)—but he says, as to the question of China—the question who is responsible, and by what means have hostilities been brought about?—Don't touch that, says the Right Honourable Gentleman, for the great questions of peace and war are involved. (Cheers.) Five and forty minutes of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech was occupied in commentaries upon the terms of the motion.—(Hear, hear.) Says the Right Hon: Gentleman, the motion contains no distinct declara• tion of opinion but the opium question, and then he calls it a party question.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Well, what is the defence ?—(Tremendous cheers from the Op position.) What is this unmeaning clamour about party question ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Is it not the incident of free discussion that on the smallest matters the conduct of the Government should be examined P.--(Cheers.) Is it perfectly novel in the history of this country that motions should be brought forward of a retrospective nature?— ( Cheer-.) Why, what event during the war was not made the subject of inquiry by opposition ?—( Hear, beer.) Did the expedition to the Scheldt escape 2—( Hoar, hear.) Did the Convention of Cintra escape?—(Hear, hear.) Did the battle of Talavera escape?—( Hear, hear.) Did not the Marquis of Lansdowne, in 1810, propose a retro spoctive censure of the Duke of Wellington and the Ministry—( Hear, hoar)— and would not the Noble Marquis have been surprised if be had been answered by a demand for all the despatches he himself would have written ?-- ( Hear, hear.) Did not Lord John Cavendish bring for ward a resolution, attributing the loss of America to the negligence and want of foresight of the Government ?--- ( Hear, hear.) Could my Right Hon Friend the Member for Pembroke have found a better Whig precedent.- - ( Cheers ana laughter)—and can it be pretended that the question of peace and war is forbidden ground for this House, and that the magnitude of the interests which maY have been put in jeopardy is to secure a Ministry punity ?—( Cheers.) Sir, this motion is limited to a dis visa declaration that the present unfortunate state of affairs with China is to be attributed to the negligence and want of foresight of the Government—it does not express as to the policy of the war—and, let me say, these Ties tions may be perfectly distinct.—( Cheers.) The war may be just and politic, and yet the necessity for it may have arisen from misconduct.—( Cheers.) It may be, tha t from contests and collisions, continued for a long series of years, a country, unaccustomed to European laws or usages, may break out into an act of outrage, which will leave no alternative but war. It may be, for instance , that the first collision between the Chinese and the British Empires may have taken place improvidently, so that the credit of the British arms cannot be retrieved without some manifestation. It may be that a shot was tired unin tentionally, and in a moment of irritation, egainst an in ferior force. It may be that a notice of blockade was followed in three days by a recal ; and it may be necessary and just to correct those erroneous impressions. —( Hears hear.) But, consistently with all this, it may be true that the necessity for a war arose from the gross miscon duct of Ministers.—(Hear, hear, hear.) And I ask, be so, whether they ought to escape with impunity? He wished to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman that there was no one who more lamented the breaking out of the war with France than the late Mr, Fox. There was no one who thought that war was a greater calamity than be did ; nor was there any person more an advocate for its termination ; but Mr. Fox supported the armament by which it was carried on, though at the same time he brought forward a motion of censure upon the Government wh ose. acts had caused it. The language of Mr. Fox on tlee 18th of Feb., 1792, was this : he said that "they were, then actually engaged in wa r , an d b e i ng s o engareeu there could be no difference of °pillion as to the necessity of supporting it." It could not be imputed to him that he us is the any want of disposition support it ; for though, n the debate on the a dd ress i n answer to the bPeec h , announcing war, he had d eprecate d i t, yet h e felt boun d to support it wheal it had commenced, and that Right Hon- Gentleman moved a resolution to the effect, that in the late negotiations his Majesty's Ministers had such measures as would produce redress, without a rupture, I of the grievances of which he complained. H e (Sir H. Peel) considered that they had shown from authority that would be respected on the other side of the Hous% that the same Members who might admit the necessity oi war might, at the same time feel it necessary to censur e those whose conduct had caused it.—(Hear, hear.) Hip , firm belief was that the necessity for this war existed ina' r Y in consequence of the course pursued by the Goversnoen'y He believed in the possibility of its being averted, n i t % not taken some foresight incomprehensible to the limited fa en e -ic ' of human nature, but by the most ordinary at te t - e 7, to the position of the affairs of this country in r 3 b a d by taking warning from the experience they ha u t 3 of the failures of their attempts by listening to j, earnest representations of their own representatives , bt above all, by fortifying th em w i t h t h e power they il t11 ; e0 have entrusted t o th em , an d g i v i ng t h em i nstruc tions B " s , the their views and intentions, w hi c h h e was sorr y to adlTee present Government had studiously withheld. f _ charge against the Government was that they had not sn a ficient foresight to k now w h at t h e E mpero r erf Ch in , was going to do. The ch arge was t h at a fter is'ne deter' mination of the relations b e t ween t h e E as t India Ce pany and the Chines e , w hi c h h a d ex i ste d f or 200 Y ear s the Government of this country had s ent a gentleman to Chi na to represent the C ro of this country there w ith out t h e powers t h ey might t; _ ; given him —nay, which it was their duty to give him , an t he: the absence both o f power and instruction, without et, moral influence of a naval force. Now what bad ba w a t the answer to th a t w hi c h h a d b een g i ven by th e ie 7„' s id Hon. Gentleman th e M em b er f or E d i n b urg h ? He n . t i t u —True, the inst ruc ti ons g i ven were of a scan ty and bate gre nature; tru e , th ey were o f such a nature as to to been without exc use if they had been given with resp ect e Brussels or Pa r i s . But he said India we's best gover_tnic in India.--( Hear.) Did th e Ri g h t H on. G en tleman I n dia there was any ana l ogy b etween the governmen t of l'ee. and the situation i n w hi c h Capt. Elliot has been Ph i ' vvet e India was a g overnment to w hi ch the peop l e l oo k UP es respect. It had a p ower f u l fl eet , an i mmense military re , , tablishment, a n d recogn i se d l aws , an d i t was absurd, ti,lethe fore, to surpos e th e re w as an y ana l ogy b etween it and situation of Capt. Elliot. The reference to such an logy showed the disadvantage he was attempting t° if le port. If this had been the case—if they had furnishe d je y Superintendent with the f u ll aut h or i ty w i t h which "seer were enabled to furnish hint—if they had passed en e s in Council first of all s p ec if y i ng what were the re gul t etto they had established — w h at a ff a i rs were a breac h of th e !': regulations, and th en h a d constituted a Court of litigit:d ralty, and then one of criminal jurisdiction—if tli ," e Y se n• indicated the general views of the policy of the u e „' - t he ment, and had said to the Superintendent—Here a r `' hee e powers which the law enables us to entrust to Ye tl--- the are the general views with respect to trade in Chlea'nica place of your residence, and the mode of your comm e n sera e tion—then, indeed, the Government might have bad the case with which to meet the present motion. But course 14 course pursued by the Government was exactly over verse ; they gave the Superintendent worse than no n F' the at all, for they gave him the semblance of it with u po rt. reality. They gave him a broken reed for hi° then theY They gave him contradictory instructions, and 00 3 pretended that on account of the distance it was vast Did the A to explain the course he ought to pursue. it , India Company find that difficulty ? Let tn e _war the despatches which they sent to their cargoes In 1832, and having read those de a f way tangible. There were three main charges let them ask whether the vindication now put fe l. we re brought against the Government first, the wa nt e ; but, struetions ; secondly, the absence of a naval f nve Gov eru. I above all, a want of the authority and power the . He ment had the means under their control g ivtng. abse e ; believed he had demonstrated that a naval force was h r t nmen t when it was essentially necessary. The Gover d - see relied upon the moral • • • h ov er an h . influence which, e e s 6 ip again, the Superintendent had said the presence ei „ • of, war in the waters of China would exercise. "eel e, 4 ... bad he would ask, could have been easier than to Ti ear. ) a ship of war in the waters of Canton ?--( ll e ar e e 00 11 that of They thought the Duke of Wellington said the ; but force was necessary only until the trade was s'ettl n ol f the Noble Duke would have adopted the I licy done a n ' Davis and Sir George Robinson, and then, l'sav-la.g., e tra de he thought the naval force would be necessary untilen n ffer _ was firmly established; but the Governme-at pursued a naval force of the utmost importance, ylw'retendent was considering the position in which the Supepnle questiot ent'poliev, and one which rendered the continued per:ape:Vl; placed. He would confine himself to one suig with genee in not giving the Superintendent the p o" It r ,igbS viz., whether the Government was chargeable ovt _ nerl :: sary for the due performance of his funetionseum. opi so _ ears in that t e been impossible o im ul p d o g ss i i v b e le n suppresst o o opi n io n ; the a Committee, after the ea' ?spates'''. suppression of that trade, but , s t hat me et sot _ ago, had considered the subject, and reported aft" t which had arrived in this country on the s , which had taken place in the manner o f conduce trade up to June 13, 1835—after the irr giving it a character ten times more learmidable thannrnie any preceding period—when the Sup erintendent in f them of the shame and disgrace oft A. , tra d e , and the of its getting into worse and worse n 'hands, and for the!rei's% ,poreant ebna:g.te, of a few reckless individuals, 'exempt from all law B %1 A cr Chinese, the honour of P ee country was compronitt in characters that coulee had a series of despa f _ches received up to the 13th of i i_e • e, d, alit 1835, forewarnino• them of what was to occur, he wou make whether it we., afit and proper communication to w upon a stf„ject of such im for the Noble Lord portance f..4uporin ackne not be mistaken —when Y, ;,sledge the despatches, and while the _ t.endent was asking for instructions, to say Government entirely approved of the steps he taken, and then to press upon him the necessity el his attempting to obtaii. , the substitution of some less , objec tionable term than that of Pin.—(Hear and cheers.) that ,tsnicei EVENING EDI TION