The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-29 00:00:00

TRADE WITH CHINA.

Sir R. PEEL had a petition to present on a subject of
much importance, and from a very respectable class of per-
sons, subjects of the King, residing in a foreign country,
and therefore, as he conceived, entitled to peculiar indul-
gence. The petition was from the British merchants re-
siding at Canton, and the subject of their complaint was,
that in their intercourse with the Chinese they were sub-
jected to the misrepresentations of the local authorities,
and that as respected them the course of justice was ma-
terially interrupted. From long experience they we e
enabled to state, that no consideration influenced the Go-
vernment of China so much as fear, and that a haught y
and decisive tone adopted towards them was the best ca 1-
culated to ensure success. The petitioners were perfectly
ready to admit that the East India Company, and the
officers in their employment, did all in their power to les en
the inconveniences to which the petitioners were unhap-
pily subjected ; and they had further to add, that he
officers of the East India Company gave every facility
towards the forwarding and presenting of that petition.—
To come then to the prayer of the petition--it was that
Parliament would take means to have a resident appointed
at the Court of China whoshould represent tie King, and
guard the interests of British merchants residing in China.
Upon this important subject he should, at the present mo-
ment, refrain from giving any opinion, rather desiring to
postpone what he might have to say till the question came
regularly before the House. There was one fact which,
before he sat down, he thought it was necessary to state—
it was that no Chinese left his own country, unless driven
from it for some offence ; and therefore all who went
abroad were looked upon in the light of outcasts who had
forfeited the protection of their Government. It was per-
fectly natural, then, that they should suppose all the
foreigners whom they found as residents in China, were
outcasts who had forfeited the protection of their Govern-
ment, and who might be treated with contumely, and
despoiled in any manner which their superiors, the Chinese,
thought proper. The consequence of that error was, to
the British residents at Canton, most ruinous. He con-
eluded by moving that the petition be referred to the Com-
mittee which he understood was to be re-appointed that night.
Mr. FERGUSSON thought the petition well worthy
the consideration of the House, and concurred in much of
what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite.
Mr. C. GRANT ventured to express great regret that
any discussion should be likely to arise on a mere point in
the petition. lie fully concurred with his Right Hon.
Friend, that the petition was entitled to the most attentive
consideration of that House, for the petitioners were not
only respectable, but were British subjects, promoting
British prosperity in a remote quarter of the world, and
exposed to very serious and distressing inconveniences.
The petition, he felt satisfied, would be received as it de-
served ; and as a Member of the Government he would
say, that the prayers of the petitioners would be met and
acceded to, so far as was consistent with prudence and
justice. He had no sort of doubt that the petitioners
were exposed to great inconvenience, and he had also no
doubt that some of the exactions to which they were sub-
jected might be checked. This had occupied the attention
of Government for a series of years, and very considerable
efforts had been made, and were continuing to be made, for
the purpose of giving increased protection to that class of
his Majesty's subjects. On the question of sending to
China a representative of his Majesty, lie should refrain
from pronouncing an opinion ; but he would undertake to
say that the matter should meet with the attentive con-
sideration of the Government, and he trusted that the
House, as well as the Government, would show how truly
they appreciated the inconveniences to which that class of
his Majesty's subjects was exposed.
Sir GEORGE STAUNTON next addressed the House,
but was not heard in the gallery.

Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH thought that there ought
to be a determined assertion of the rights of our fellow-
subjects at Canton ; but anything beyond that he should
be decidedly averse from. There should on no account
be even a threat of an appeal to arms, for the matter could
easily be arranged by much better means.
Mr. WOOLRYCHE WHITMORE thought that great
benefit would arise from the appointment of an Ainb issador
to the Court of Pekin, and though there might be difficul-
ties at first, they were difficulties which would give way
in time. He was sure that there did not exist i❑ any
quarter a disposition to alter the commercial relations sub-
sisting between this country and China.
Mr. ASTELL said, as the Hon. Gentleman opposite
had abandoned his motion, he hoped that the subject would
only be debated formally, and not incidentally.
Mr. EWART said we ought to be determined to assert
our right in a manner worthy of a great country, but not
by going to war.J
Mr. BARING said if an indiscriminate traffic were
allowed to China, the consequence would be the maltreat-
ment of the merchants there ; unless the diplomatic power
exercised by the East India Company at the Factory there
was replaced by some Consul or official person from this
country ; and even then he suspected that in a very short
time we should be called on to vindicate our dignity. He
could not, however, understand why something prac'ical was
not done, instead of wasting the time of the House and
the country in having committees and making reports,
which when made would not be read by ten gentlemen in
that House.

Mr. WARBURTON would not say a word as to the
propriety of our having a Consul at Canton ; but this he
knew, that the Americans were carrying on a direct trade
with China, with every advantage to themselves, and yet
they had no Consul or Representative there.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY complained of the Hon.
Gentleman (311.. Baring) not having confined himself to
the purport of the petition before the House.
Sir C. FORMES said, that our trade with China met
with great liberality on the part of that Government ; and
he should like to ask those from whom this petition came,
whether they would rather be treated there according to
the laws of that Empire, or according to the laws of Great
Britain ? There were edicts in force there, by which the
natives of the Celestial Empire were prohibited from cheat-
ing the strangers who went thither to procure the neces-
saries of life ; and, with respect to smuggling, though
there were numberless Custom-house boathtseplaaswsinng.asro,:nnd.
and round the ships that lay at anchor at Canton, they
never attempted to make any search, as
tent with the confiscation of the vessel, in the event of the
actual landing of opium, or any other prohibited article.
When foreign vessels came into the port of London, if they
did not choose to comply with the regulations which were
in force, they would be told to go about their business._
(A laugh)—and be did not see why British vessels should
complain of being used in the same way in the port of
Can ton.
The petition wTHEas thEen orASdTereINDIES.d to be printed.
Mr. C. GRANT moved the re-appointment of a Coin.
Emaitstteelntdoiesi.nquTirhee
Rinitgo the state of
htnon.Gentletinradaneo,bt c. with the
rved,thatit
would be unnecessary for him to enlarge on the necessity
that there was for the appointment of that Committee ;
for he believed, that in making the proposal for its appoint-
ment he was acting in consonance with the general feel-
ing of the country. He therefore trusted that itsappoint-
tnent would not occupy touch of the time ofthe House,
apse,tiitniofnactht,atthheaddeibuastte cii)l€!enit hadp reseankteeaddybyt,atkiewnßight oHn
on.
n.
Baronet—(llear.)
Mr. W. WHIT3IORE complainedof before thet nn
which the business had been conducted a thee manner
last
Committee. The consideration of the administration
justice in India was a most important point;b u:
he
ela-
mented t
Committee. to say, tha
It was o
that it hadbenly possible been almost
to a
totally
rr
arrive
a
tthe
neglectedie
knowledge of that administration by the testimony of those

distinguished individuals who either had forinttly acted,
or were now acting in a Judicial capacity in India : but
when it was proposed that they should be examined, the
proposition was met in the Committee by a technical ob-
jection ; it was said that the Company was not petitioning
for a renewal of its charter, and that therefore it was not
essential that it should afford that information.

Mr. ASTELL defended the Committee, on the ground
that it had been appointed to inquire into the trade with
India ; and was not, therefore, called upon to investigate
the administration of justice in that country.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY expressed a desire that the
number of the Members of the Committee should be
smaller, for the last year there had been more of desultory
conversation than of regular investigation. In his opinion,
i, would be more advantageous to appoint two or three
Cummittees for the different branches of this important
subject.
Mr. C. FERGUSON complained of the Hon. Gentle-
nun (Mr. W. Whitmore) having made an attack on the
Committee without giving notice of his intention.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Fergusson) would, however, say this—
that so far from any obstruction having been given to a
full investigation, the Committee had manifested the
greatest desire to afford every facility; and that so far
from the Hon. Gentleman having any right to complain,
he had been the very person who had brought on desul-
tory conversations, and had thrown the proceedings of the
Committee into confusion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. WHITMORE explained.

Mr. COURTENAY said, that it appeared to him un-
necessary to meet the statement made by the Hon. Gentle.
man (Mr. Whitmore), for he understood that the Company
would very shortly petition for the renewal of the charter;
and then would be the time for introducing any objections
to their mode of Government.
Mr. C. GRANT did not think the Directors of the
East India Company had thrown any obstacles in the way
of inquiry. With respect to the number of the Com-
mittee, he could assure the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. S.
Wortley) that he had made every endeavour to reduce the
number as low as possible, and the result was, the
Committee would consist of thirty-sir Members, which
was pretty nearly the number of the Committee which
was first appointed on the motion of his Right Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUAIE felt bound to support the statement made
by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Astell), who hail clearly
stated, that till the Company petitioned, the matter was
in the hands of the Government; and he (Mr. Flume)
would take the liberty, in furtherance of this idea, to
suggest, that till that petition was presented, the Go-
vernment should prepare a form of business for the use of
the Committee, by which means much desultory matter
would be got rid of, and the Committee would proceed at
once to the business which really ought to demand its at-
tention.

Sir JOHN MALCOLM wished that the inquiries should
be conducted so as to throw light on each other, and he
entreated the House always to recollect that the Govern-
ment of India must be looked nn as a whole.

Sir CHARLES FORBES hoped that the Committee
would be assiduously attended. He had attended the for-
mer Committee every (lay it sat, but that was not the case
with other Members, who sometimes took part in its
cussions. It )(append that Members dropped in occasion-
ally, and put questions without being fully aware of what
had been previously done. He remembered one question
had been put about tle training of elephants—(A laugh)
—that only excite,' a smile. He hoped some other system
would be adopted ; and he would recommend that the
name of every Member who asked a question should be
prefixed to that question. He hoped, too, that in the in-
quiries and discussions, the interest of the East India Com-
pany would he attended to, for the country, and he in par-
ticular, owed that Company a debt of gratitude.

Sir J. MACDONALD recommended the Gallant
Officer (Sir John Malcolm) to read the evidenee given
before the Committee, as he could assure him, well ae-
quainted as he was with India, he would find it worth his
attention. He believed that the discussion arose from the
nature of the inquiries in the Committee, the two parties
having fenced a good deal. There was on the one hand
the free trade party, and on the other the East India
Company ; and as the East India Company were not
called upon, as they ought. to establish a case, they had
not called any evidence. To avoid the desultory inquiries
which had formerly been carried on, his Hon. Friend (the
Member for Middlesex) recommended his Right Hon.
Friend should chalk out the course of the Committee; but
the suggestion of the Hon. Member (the East India
Director) which he believed was acquiesced in by the
other Directors, would prevent the necessity of acting on
this recommendation.

Sir J. MALCOLM had carefully read the evidence, but
that had not altered his opinion.
Sir G. ROBINSON thought the whole difficulty arose
from the Members of the Committee going into the in-
quiry with their opinions previously formed, he might
even say, having previously taken up very strong pre-
judices on the subject, which they have promulgated and
published to the woild. He doubted if such persons were
the best qualified to come to a sound conclusion. There
was one class of Members decidedly friends to free trade to
India and China ; and there was another class closely
connected with the East India Company, and who fancied
themselves bound to support that Company. Let any
man read the evidence given before the Committee as to
the China trade, and he might form any opinion. He had
read that evidence, being previously acquainted with the
subject, and he found it so contradictory, the inquiries and
the evidence were all of such a nature, that with very
little care they might be made to tell equally on either side.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON said that the E tat
India Company must be treated by the Committee like
any other petitioner who came before it, and must make
out its own case.

The Committee was then appointed.
BOARD OF CONTROUL AND SALARIES'
COMMITTEE.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY wished to put a question
to the Noble Lord opposite. At the close of the last Ses-
sion a report was made by the Committee appointed to in-
quire into salaries, which recommended that the salary of
the President of the Board of Controul Bhou.d be reduced
from 5,0001. to 3,5001. The report assigned no reason
whatever for this proposed reduction, but he conceived it
was recommended from supposing that the President was
not called upon to do the same quantity of active duty in
that House as the other Members of the Government. He
did not know whether or not that were the reason, but if
it were, it was an error, for the President of that Board
had a very laborious office. He wished to ask, therefore,
whether the Government had any directions for fixing the
amount of the salary at the sum recommended by the
Committee? If that were the case, he was sure that it
would conduce to lower the efficiency of the Board.—
(Hear, hear.) It would cause the appointment to be
given to inferior persons, and would degrade the office so
as to be looked on as a mere step to a higher place. If his
question was answered in the affirmative, he should at
some future time bring the subject before the House.
Lord ALTHORP replied, that it was impossible for
him to say, as be was not a Member of the Committee, on
what ground it had made the recommendation in question.
He could, however, say, that it was the wish of the Govern-
ment to comply with that recommendation ; and he be-
lieved that in compliance with that recommendation in.
structions had been issued.

Mr. C. GRANT said, the Hon. Member who asked
the question knew that the salaries were paid by sending a
quarterly account to the India House of the money re-
quired. He had a few days before given direction to send
such an account ; and i❑ that a deduction was made in pro-
portion to the recommendation of the Committee.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE also wished to put to the
Noble Lord a question as to a decision of that Committee
relative to General Officers. He wished to know if the
Government, from the evidence given before that Com-
mittee, had come to a decision that General Officers who
held regiments should be deprived of the emoluments of
those commands during the time they held civil offices.
He had given his opinion on the subject to the Committee,
and had stated that it would be most unjust to deprive
such officers of their regiments; though no reference was
made to his evidence in the report of the Committee. It
was understood that Naval Officers were to be allowed to
hold their half-pay with their salary as Lords of the Ad-
miralty. That was giving an advantage to one branch of
the service which was denied to the other. He hoped
that the Government would come to a decision favourable
to the claims of the Army. He did not wish to say any-
thing of the different branches of the service, but he must
say that the Army hid a stronger claim than the Navy,
inasmuch as the Officers of the Army purchased their
commissions. Moreover, the Officers of the Navy had
opportunities of making much larger prize money tha❑
Officers of the Army. If there were any jealousy of a
standing army in that House, he would remark that such
an army was more likely to be harmless if the officers
were connected with the civil service than if they were
excluded from it.
Lord ALTHORP, in reply to the Gallant Officer, was
understood to say that the Government had as )et come
to no decision on the subject, and that he could give no
pledge as to what course it would adopt.
Mr. HUME defended the recemmendations and conduct
of the Committee.
Mr. COURTENAY would not then enter into the
subject; but would, at some future time, state hie stropg

objections to reducing the salary of the Prefihlent of the
Board of Controul. _ _ .

Mr. ALLAN FERGUSON believed that the recom-
mendation to reduce the salary of the First Commissioner
of the Board of Controul, was given from supposing that
the office was not one of much labour. But this was a
mistake. It was an office of great labour, and its duties
required a man of much experience. Before a man could
exactly perform those duties, a particular training was ne-
cessary. He wished also to say, that if the Generals and
Admirals were allowed to retain their half-pay and their
regiments, when they accepted civil situations, it would be
a very great hardship on the subalterns to make them give
up their half-pay when they took a civil office. He did
not think even that such a rule was economical, as it pre-
', eated these officers from accepting civil offices.
Mr. JOHN WOOD, as a Member of the Committee,
could say that the principle which guided its decision was,
that the best possible talents should be obtained for the ser-
,ice of the State, and that they should he adequately re-
munerated. The Committee had not decided on any case
without having sufficient evidence before it. As to the
of ce in question, that of President of the Board of Con-
t., oul, he must say that it was not considered as one of
much labour. It was plain that persons could nut be
trained to the office from the manner in which they were
frequently changed. Let them look at the Secretaries who
had nothing to do. They were even changed more fre-
quently and more whimsically than the President. If
their duties were well performed it must be by a miracle.
Ile believed that one reason why the reduction of the Pre-
sident's salary was recommended was, because that office
had a great deal of patronage. He was glad to find that
the Government had redeemed its pledge on this point, and
he hoped that it would go on and reduce other salaries.
Mr. GOULBURN only rose to protest against the prin.
ciple of regarding patronage as part of the emoluments of
office, to compensate for a deficient salary. He could not
conceive any thing more dangerous than that of giving
public men insufficient salaries, and leaving them to make
up the deficiency by patronage.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. W. WYNN also thought nothing could be
more detrimental to the public interest than to consider
patronage as a substitute for a salary. He considered the
proper use of patronage one of the most sacred duties of a
public officer. When lie was in office he had so employed
his patronage. He had given places to officers' sons and
to those who had a claim upon the public. He did not
mention this as a merit in him, for he had only followed
the example of his eminent predecessors. As for the
lowering the salary, he believed that the consequence of
that would be that the office would become lowered also,
and would be regarded only as a stepping-stone to the
higher offices. That ought to he avoided.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE explained. Something had
been said about the sweets of office influencing the judg-
ment of those who opposed the view taken by the Com-
mittee. He could say for himself that lie was poorer than
when he took office ; and had only 3001. a year from the
public, which was not more than the interest of the money
he had paid for his cootmission. He believed, therefore,
that the sweets of office could not have influenced his opi-
nion. He begged to bear his testimony to the very proper
manner in which the Right Hun. Gentleman who had last
spoke, had disposed of his patronage while in office.
Mr. TRANT said nothing could be more injurious to
the public service than to hold up to the Members of that
House,
,eanindptuo fillblic their p
men, aosc havingkts.e nothing to do, and as
onlyl
Mr. HUNT had only one word to say. It was ob-
jected to the reduction of the salary, that it would make
the President of the Board of Controul desire to obtain
a higher place. To remedy that lie would recommend
that the salaries of the other officers should be reduced to
the same level of 3,500/.
The question was then put that five of the Committee
be a quorum, and the subject dropped.