The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1840.

having persevered in bringing opium to China, in direct and
known violation of the laws of that empire ; and to request
that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take imme-
diate measures for the prevention of such proceedings,
which are so dishonourable to the clizracter and so detri-
mental to the interests of her subjects; and to assure her
Majesty that, if any additional powers should be found
requisite for that purpose, this House will readily concur
in granting them to her Majesty." 4
Viscount MELBOURNE said the Noble Earl had set
out with two promises to the House—first, that in the dis-
cussion of the question he would introduce no politics or
warmth ; and, in the second place, he promised that he
would not detain their Lordships long. The first promise
he (Lord Melbourne) thought the Noble Earl had broken
—he was certain that he had broken the last.—(A laugh.)
However, considering the great importance of the subject,
the length of the papers, and the number of the topics to
which it was necessary to allude, probably the Noble Lord
had not occupied more time thin the subject demanded.
The Noble Lord began by laying down as a principle that
every foreign resident in another country was bound to re-
spect the law of that country even more than the laws of
his own country. That was rather a startling proposition
at firm might, but, upon consideration, he was very much
inclined to agree with it, because the foreigner, by his
conduct, might involve the two countries in a war, which
responsibility he was relieved from while resident in his
own country. Whether it was possible to carry that princi-
ple into effect among those who were engaged in the pur-
suit of gain, he would leave for their Lordships' deter-
mination. He had also entered into a deep inquiry into
the motives which actuated the Chinese Government, and
he endeavoured to show that they were actuated by pure
and lauduble motives, and not by any apprehension
of losing the circulating medium by the exporta-
tion of Sycee silver. ( Hear, hear.) That was
' not a fit subject for inquiry in their Lordships'
House; but he perfectly agreed with the Noble Earl that
no country should encourage its own subjects in the viola-
tion of the laws of another country. But how far one
country could protect or enforce the prohibitory laws of
another country—whether it was the duty of one country
to protect from violation the revenue and protective laws
of another country by laws of its own, was a question which
admitted of great doubt. He could not agree with the
economy of the Noble Earl, who appeared to have adopted
that of the Minister of China, whose name it was impos-
sible for him to pronounce; but that was not the subject
of inquiry at the present moment. It appeared in various
parts of that correspondence that there were symptoms
that matters were coming to a crisis with respect to the
opium question, and the Noble Lord charged upon the
Government great neglect in not having sooner sent out
Instructions to Captain Elliot. He (Lord M.)denied that
any neglect was attributable to the Government upon that
question. It was impossible that they could have sent to
such a distance any positive instructions, for they must
have arrived at a period in that country at the time when
the affairs were in a very different state to that which was
supposed
to exist when the instructions had been deter-
mined upon in this country. The trade in opium was fast
increasing ; it was seriously attracting the attention of the
Chinese Government, and something would be done,
but what that something would be was perfectly uncertain.
even to the Chinese themselves. One very enlightened
Chinese legislator, who had been named by the Noble
Earl, was greatly in favour of legalizing the trade in
opium. Indeed it, was generally supposed that in the Go-
vernment of China there had been a considerable division
of opinion upon the subject. He had heard that the
question was decided by as narrow majorities as they had
sometimes seen in this country—( A laugh)—at all events,
it was very difficult indeed for any one to anticipate what the
decision of the Chinese Government on the subject would
have been. The prohibition of the introduction of opium into
China was of recent date—not later than 1796—and, no
doubt, the expectation that possibly there might be a much
freer importation, had given rise not only to an increase of
speculation in the growth of opium, but of attempts at its
importation. If their Lordships looked at the debates in
Parliament, with respect to India, he believed they would
find the market looked to for opium was the Dutch islands,
the original place where the sale was found for opium.
The Dutch were trading in it more than the Chinese pre.
vious to 1796, when the smuggling of opium was small as
compared to the great extent to which it had since been
practised. During this whole time there had
been no period, in his opinion, in which any other
instructions could by possibility have bean sent than
had been sent by his Noble Friend the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs. This was also tke charge brought
against his Noble Friend by the Noble Lord, as far as he
remembered, in the whole course of his speech, but he had
made in his (Lord Melbourne's) opinion a most severe and
unjust attack upon the gentleman who represented the
interests of this country in that quarter of the globe, and
whose conduct, in his (Lord Melbourne's) opinion, was
marked by the greatest stability, firmness, and judgment.
In the whole of the declamation on this subject which had
taken place in the other House, no allegations had been
brought—no blame cast upon Capt. Elliot, and many per-
sons conceived it to be a matter of compliment to that gen-
tleman, that in many of the speeches his name had never
been adverted to. He (Lord Melbourne) thought it was
some testimony in his favour when they considered the
tenor of that debate and the spirit of hostility and party
violence in which in which it was cerried on, that no accu-
sation was brought against the prudence, the propriety, or
the wisdom of that gentleman's conduct in that Assembly.
The Noble Lot d said the Government was responsible for
the acts of Captain Elliot—if net by previous instructions,
at least by subsequent recognition of them.—( Hear.) He
fully admitted that to be the case, and said, that consider-
ing the circumstances and situation in which Captain
Elliot was placed—considering the people with whom be
had to deal, the daneors by which he was surrounded, and
the novel situation in which he was placed—if be (Lord
Melbourne) was not prepared to say that every art was
precisely the best that could have been done in the cir-
cumstances, at the same time he should be very loth,
this distance, and in his iguerance of the real state of the
circumstances, to cast any blame on him, believing, as
he did, that. on the whole, the conduct of Captain Elliot
had been distinguisited by the greatest judgment, pru-
dence, firmness, and resolution. He (Lord Melbourne)
wished not to make any observations depreciatory of the
Chinese Gevernment or nation ; but the Noble Lord
seemed to think highly of the Administration of that
country, and to entertain a strong feeling in favour of their
institutions and whole conduct. He seemed to think the
whole duty of Captain Elliot was to carry into elect the
laws of the Chinese empire, and not to afford protection to
t)
havere a realDlnnii
fofeCotnerotacbbeceesdtidoirtd::
bdittuhte
clear Com
that portion of her Majesty's subjects whose interest had
it was
that Mr.
been committed to his care. He said that instead of
wiselynw oat:pnaciv
impossiblepr
obedienceu dei e
to
re-
feting
Nhier.oDugelnitt'stoa
that
violence towards that gentleman was to be apprehended,
Captain
tiaonnddtehtetehrecaliiemiflin,nr
determining
nds which,
doubt from tile temper which then prevailed, would have
placed him in the greatest danger. The Noble Lord
appeared to be of opinion that Captain Elliot should have
enforced the Chinese law, or inflicted the penalties of the
law of this country on persons engaged in smuggling
opium.; but it was the dutyf of Captain Elliot to
give every protection he possibly could to the English
community, for whom he acted under the circumstances iu
which they were placed. He (Lord Stanhope) said if
Captain Elliot and ethers were banished from Canton at
present it was owing to Captain Elliot's having advised
them to withdraw. Considering that they had been im-
prisoned and deprived of all subsistence, could he have
done otherwise,, or would it have been consistent with his
duty to have done otherwise than withdraw from the dan-
ger of that violence to which he was exposed? The Noble
Lord seemed very indignant that he should have sought
protection from the Portuguese authorities, and said it was
a most unusual act. He should consider the situation in
which Captain Elliot was placed, and under these circum-
stances could it be disgraceful that he sought the assist-
ance of the Governor of Macao, which he or any other
christian Governor would have thought it his duty to afford,
if consideration for his own safety had not prevailed over
other feelings. The affair of attacking the war junks was
another matter the Noble Lord made complaint of. This
certainly did not appear to him ( Lord Melbourne) the
most prudent act of Captain Elliot, but considering that
be was unable to obtain the supplies he asked for, he thought
if there was some imprudence in that act it aught to be en-
tirely looked over, and not considered to be in any degree
blameable. The Noble Lord had expended much sound-
ing declamation on the general question, and had asked
him (Lord Melbourne) whether the trade with China, in
the present state of the revenue of this country, was indif-
Event ? Unquestionably not. He (Lord Melbourne) felt
the importance and difficulty of the subject possibly as
much as the Noble Earl could do ; but when the Noble
Lord asked them by this address at once to put an end to
any hostilities which might exist, and prevent their recur-
rence for the future, he wished their Lordships to consider
whether there was reason to suppose this address--if their
Lordships should agree to it—would have such an effect as
that expected from it by the Noble Lord? Whether, on
the contrary, it would not have a totally different effect,
and whether it was wise to interfere in this matter in a
manner which might have a serious effect, not only on
hostilities that might take place, but on any negotiations
which might be instituted by this country. He would not
then enter into any discussion with the Noble Lord with
or the objec-
respect to the deleterious quality of opium, , but he
tion to the traffic as it at present existed
;whether
begged the Noble Lord to consider
this address had any tendency to
by British pt an end
u
to that trade, or the smuggling of opium
sub-
jects into China, and whether it would not be the most
unwise and imprudent thing that could be conceived to
hold out by an address, expectations of our doing that
which it was possible, and lie
was afraid notimprobable,d
we might find ourselves unable to effect. If they passed
that address, pledging themselves to take such measures
as would put an end to the trade which the Noble Lord
said he conceived to be the cause of disagreement be-
tween the two countries, they should first _
the state of that trade, and whether they lied the power
to produce that effect. Ile (Lord:Melbourne) was_ sorry
for the use of opium in Chins, and though he might not
go to the length the Noble Lord did in his generaladvo-
cacy of abstinence, as far as stimulating narcotics were
concerned lhe would go as far as the Noble Lord. He,
could not, however, help feeling concerned, that from tee
mode of its cultivation—from its being so completely a
Government cultivation (not that ho was defending this,
nor yet pledging himself or the Government to the dis-
continuance of the monopoly of opium on the present
system)_he did feel concerned that this system did, in
the eyes of the world, identify the Government of this
country in some degree with the propagation of tho growth
of opium, but at the same time he begged the House to
consider the state in which this question stood. Here was
a great empire, of immense extent, and of still more im-
mense population, in which there
was a great demand
and desire for this drug. This was the case with all
nations where the use of wines or spirituous liquors was
prohibited by custom or religion, their place being sup- I
plied by stimulants of a kind yet more destructive. flow
opium could be more deleterious than these, he (Lord I
Melbourne) could not well conceive, nor yet how the de-
mand for it could be so strong as for ardent spirits, and for
this reason—it was not pleasant to the palate, as was the
case with wine and brandy.—(Laughter.) But, however,

he would not real ei upon that which was said to be the I
cause, it being said that it was sought for with an avidity
great and almost uncontrollable. Then, with this demand
for this drug, there was a great territory of our own, where
there waa an unlimited power of raising it; therefore
if we limited the growth within our own dominions, how
could we prevent it in other dependent States ? Again,
opium was a most powerful medicine and more efficacious
in some diseases than any other. Supposing, then, we
prevent its growth in our own dominions, what was to
prevent its being grown along the whole line of the Indus,
and Sinde, and the Punjaub, and when it was so grown
and to be had, how could they prevent traders accustomed
to the traffic from continuing it and carrying it to that
market, where it was found so profitable. Therefore if they
passed this address, promising to put down the traffic, they
would only hold out delusive expectations which they
would not be able to fulfil. We would not be able to re-
strain our own subjects from smuggling the opium into ter-
ritories where it was desired, and consequently would only in-
cur disgrace in having promised a reform we never,intended,
or were unable to carry into effect, as had been the case
with the slave trade, which, it was said, while professing
to abolish, we desired to keep solely for our own advan-
tage. He (Lord Melbourne) begged leave to say, that
whatever might be the Noble Lord's opinion of this mea-
sure, he thought his Lordship would hardly interfere by
such an address as this, which, taken as a condemnation of
all that had been done, was a complete vindication of the
whole conduct of the Chinese—a complete declaration in
their favour, and which altogether would have the
effect of interrupting any peaceable terms we might have
to offer. Supposing the negotiations which were now
taking place would tend, as he trusted they would, to pro-
duce a speedy arrangement with the Governmnec of
China. He thought this address was hardly quite correct,
even in form, suposing their Lordships were inclined to
pass one. The Noble Lord then read the address, and ob-
served he thought our relations with China could not be
considered as having been at any time very "friendly,"
or our commercial intercourse as very " intimate." He
admitted that its interruption was " occasioned by the
opium trade," but he thought the extent to which the
opium trade had been carried had been increased by
the connivance of the Chinese authority. The Noble
Lord was very anxious to defend the honour of the Em-
peror of China, and said that he had never connived at it.
Possibly that was the case, but it was connived at by the
whole body of the Chinese authorities and inferior man-
darins, by whose connivance alone it could have been
grown to the vast extent which it had attained. It was
therefore hardly fair to attribute the whole evil
to the abstract perseverance of the English in
the trade. He was of opinion this whole mat-
ter should receive the most serious consideration,
that it should be considered with a view, if possible, to
place it on a better footing than it at present stood—a
footing which would less encourage that traffic, and if pos-
sible less identify the Government of this country with
it. But he could not pledge himself or the Government
by what he had said on the present occasion. He did not
think it wise, at the present moment, to do that which
must be injurious to the interests of the country, and pre-
vent the satisfactory termination of negotiations, which
might possibly be entered into hereafter with the Chinese
Government.
The Duke of WELLINGTON objected very strongly
to the interference of the House in a question like the pre-
sent, and he was therefore disposed to move the previous
question as an amendment. • He did not wish to give any
opinion with respect to the negotiations pending with
China—whether or not her Majesty's Superintendent at
China and the Government at home were in the right or
in the wrong was a question on which he was not prepared
to give an opinion at present. He did not know the course
which was to be taken, or the means, or the resources
which could be brought to bear to avenge the insults
offered to her Majesty's Government, and the injuries in-
flicted on her people, and therefore it was that he in-
treated their Lordships to give no vote upon the ques-
tion. He knew nothing of the means they had of carry.
ing on the warlike operations which were now in progress,
for the purpose of avenging the insults inflicted upon her
Majesty's Superintendent and the British subjects resident
at Canton, by the Chinese authorities. The Noble Lord
said that the trade in opium was carried on contrary to the
laws of China, but it was carried on with the know-
ledge and sanction of the Chinese authorities, who re-
ceived large payments and bribes for that purpose.
In the very able and voluminous reports that had appeared
on the subject, it appeared that the trade had been car-
ried on for years with the knowledge of the Emperor
and the authorities of China, and it was made for months
a subject of discussion in that empire whether it should
be discontinued, or continued on payment of a large duty.
Now, it did not say much for the morality of the Emperor
of China, which the Noble Earl would wish to impress
upon the House, that such a subject would be deliberately
discussed by that monarch, because the payment of the
duty would not make the trade more moral. It was well
known that the opium bad been carried in to the ports of
China by mandarin boats, under the sanction and under the
very eyes of the authorities there. In fact, the trade was
put down, because it was supposed to have occasioned the
export of large. quantities of the native silver, called Sycee
silver. The Noble Earl and the Noble Viscount had
both omitted to narrate, that in the month of November,
1837, there was a despatch from Captain Elliot, stating
that the export of Sycee silver was to be prohibited,
and the trade in opium continued.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
So that up to that period at least the Government at home
had every reason to believe that the trade would be sanc-
tioned and permitted by the Chinese Government. He
(the Duke of Wellington) had sat upon a Committee of
the House of Lords upon the opium and other branches of
trade, and it appeared from the evidence that it was a great
object that the opium trade should be continued and ex-
tended. After the exclusive privileges of the East India
I Company were done away with, the House of Commons
had come to a similar conclusion on the subject. Under
these circumstances it was a little hard to turn round on
those men and say that not only should they be punished
by the loss of their property, but that they should be
charged with being the immediate cause of the war.
He wished to ascertain, in the first place, what
were the immediate causes of the war, and what
were the means of carting it on before he gave any
opieion upon the subject. He wished to ascertain what
were the real objects, intentions, and resources of her
Majesty's Government. He was anxious, if the war was
a just one, to give her Majesty's Government his support,
but he bed as yet no data upon that point. After the Chi-
nese Commissioner had ordered the surrender of
all the opium in the possession of her Majesty's Bri-
tish subjects, and after all the arrangements
had been made for delivering it up, he declared that he
had never in his life road such language as had been ad.
dressed by the Chinese Government to Captain Elliot.--
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl talked of the language
used to the Chinese Government, but it appeared to him
that there had been ample provocation.—(Hear, hear.)
Such language as had been addressed to Captain Elliot,
had never been used by eny Government to the represen-
tative of the British nation..--( Hear, hear,) He (the
Duke of Wellington) had passed fifty years of his life in
the service of his country, and he could not bear to see
the representative of that country treated in so insulting a
manner. Captain Elliot had been charged with evasion,
and attempting to deceive ; he was then separated from all
communication with his friends and countrymen, and under
threats of the most serious character, compelled to sur-
render property to an enormous amount, which was either
sent to Pekin or destroyed.—( Hear, hear.) The war bad
grown out or other circumstances, also. A claim was
made for the surrender of an Englishman, because a
Chinese had lost his life in an affray...a( Hear.) Captain
Elliot, as became an English officer, refused, and set on
foot an inquiry, the result of which was, that the offence
could not be brought home to any party. The Chinese
Government still insisted, and that was one of the causes
of the war. Another cause was that after a promise had
been made that matters would be restored to their former
state after the opium was delivered up, and that the
British residents should have the necessaries of life, and
the trade should be re-opened—having received those
promises, it was ascertained that a new proposition for the
surrender of en Englishman was introduced, and that the
captain of every British vessel entering the port of Canton
should sign a bond to conform to the laws of China.
The Noble Earl, who evidently was not very conversant
with the matter, was not aware that the British traders
to China, on former occasions, had invariably
refused to do so. Captain Elliot, much to his credit, re
fused to do so, and he was happy to bear testimony to the
spirit and firmness displayed by the Superintendent on that
occasion, and also in his refusal to deliver up the six men
whom the Chinese authorities so pertinaciously demanded.
Mr. Dent, a gentleman who had amassed a large fortune,
as many others he believed had, in the opium trade,
having fallen under the displeasure of the Chinese Govern-
ment, had been demanded from Captain Elliot, who in a
very proper manner, as the Chief Superintendent of the
trade there, had refused to deliver him up to be treated as
the Chinese authorities thought proper. He (the Duke of
Wellington)anduld have been ashamed of the name of En-
glishman, if he had found any British officer in the service of
the Government acting so base a part, but he was gratified
to find that Captain Elliot had exhibited throughout, a pro..
per spirit and determination.—( Hear, hear.) It was his
duty to protect Kr. Dent even to the spilling of the last
drop of his blood ; he bad no right to give him up ; he was
living under the protection of the British Government in
China; he did protect him, and for that he (the Duke of
Wellington) should ever approve of his conduct—( Hear,
Lear)—ho would have been guilty of a total dereliction of
his duty, if he had given up Mr. Dent to be dealt with
by the Chinese Government, and he should have been
ashamed of the name of an Englishman if Captain Elliot
had done so.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Earl said
that the Americans had accepted this proposition. Why the
Americans had also given up, on a former occasion, a sea-
,
man to be dealt with according to the Chinese law !
( Hear, hear.) He (the Duke of Wellington) was sorry
for it, he wished they had not done so; they would have
done better to have taken a leaf out of our book, and
have followed the example set them by the East India
Company, who had put an end to the trade rather than risk
the life of one of his Majesty's subjects by giving him over
to be tried by such authorities. 'These were facts
which he had brought under their notice, and he
entreated their Lordships not to pronounce an opi-
nion that night, by interposing! their authority
to cover transactions of that description, and not to en-
courage the notion that that House would cast blame on
an Honourable and Gallant Officer for doing his duty.
That gentleman had been 'placed in an unfortunate and
difficult position._(llear, hear.) He (the Duke of
Wellington) • eitild confess that, from the beginning, he
had never approved of the system which we had been
acting upon in China. His opinion was originally ex-
pressed in an amendment which he had proposed to the
China Bill, the object of which was to induce the Go-
vernment and Parliament to continue the trade in the
hands of the East India Company, simultaneously with
the rest of her Majesty's subjects, leaving in the hands of
the East India Company more particularly the manage_
meta of all communications with the Chinese Government
at Canton. He was of the same opinion still, and he be.
lievcd that when the contents of that book were taken into
consideration, it would be seen that he had rot been far
wrong. That which he disapproved of in the Government
was, that they had not carried into execution the measures

which they had chalked out originally, but they
were still left undone.—(Hear, hear.) He would
not say that by the adoption of them all these
unhappy events would have been precluded, hut at least ne
thought they would have avoided some of the violence
❑nder which they had suffered. In the first place, the
establishment of Courts of Jurisdiction had been repeatedly
called for by every one of the gentlemen who had filled the
office of Superintendent. This bad not taken place.
Then there was another point to which the Noble Earl
should have adverted in bringing forward this question,
—the Act of Parliament gave her Majesty the power of
regulating the trade of her subjects in China by Order in
Council. No such Order in Council had been issued to
this day. The Noble Lord had blamed the Superin-
tendent for not sending away the ships from Lintin ; he
said that at last he found lie had bad the power of doing it.
Why, when he came to the last extremity of starvation,
he was certainly under the necessity of inducing
then to give up the opium, and he had given them orders
for payment on the Noble Viscount opposite, and by that
he had got them to give it up; but he had no authority.
There was no Order in Council to enable him to perform
that service; he had performed at his own risk, and this
country and the Government owed him their thanks that
he did perform that service at his own risk. It was an
act of courage and self-devotion which few men had had
an opportunity of showing, and which, perhaps, fewer
still would have shown, had they had the opportunity.
From the commencement of the appointment, each succes-
sive Superintendent had been orying out for a naval force.
Capt. Elliot had done so—so had Mr. Davies—so had Sir
Geo. Robinson ; yet up to this moment there was no com-
manding naval force on the China station. The conduct
of the Chinese, and the threats which they had held out,
ever► as early as the time of Napier, clearly showed the
necessity of having a strong naval force on that station.
It was necessary not only to awe the Chinese, and back
our political negotiations, but it was necessary for the
management of her Majesty's subjects themselves. Why,
the papers showed that some of them had even threat-
ened to make war themselves on the Chinese on their own
account, and had fitted out armed vessels for the protec-
tion of their smuggling ports. The authority of an Order
in Council was necessary, as well as a naval force, in
order to enable the Superintendent to deal with these
people as he ought to have done ; and possibly, if he
bad been strengthened by the presence of an
adequate naval force, he might have prevented
things from coming to that extremity to which they
had come, notwithstanding all his efforts, and he be-
lieved he had made every effort in-his power to prevent it.
On these grounds he trusted the House would not agree
to the address proposed by the Noble Lord, but would
vote for the previous question, as that would not pledge
the House as to what they would do hereafter, while at
the same time it did pledge the House respecting the con-
duct of the Chinese Government. They certainly ought
not to encourage illicit trade anywhere, but he agreed with
the Noble Viscount opposite, that it would be impossible
for the country to interfere to carry into execution the re-
venue-laws of China, or any other country.—( Hear, hear.)
If we did so for China, we must do the same thing for
Spain, for Portugal, for France, for America—in fact, fo
every other country in the world, and in that case he
thought we should find that we had undertaken rather
more than even our own Navy, how extensive soever it
might be, could do. The Noble Duke concluded by
:moving the previous question.
Lord LYTTELTON thought the proceedings of
the High Commissioner were the cause of the
the war; and that his proceedings were perfectly unjustifi-
able. They had placed the Chinese in the wrong when
before they had been in the right, and had placed the war
in an entirely different point of view. He could not look
at the probability of war but with regret, and he could not
sympathize with the feelings of those who looked to a tri-
umpbant issue. Whatever might be the issue of it he was
certain they could have no just grounds for triumph. He
felt himself compelled with great regret to vote against
the motion of the Noble Earl.

Lord COLCHESTER said that it was admitted that
it was the duty of all persons residing in a foreign country
to obey the laws of that country. There was no necessity
for this country to interfere to put down the opium trade;
the Chinese authorit es would have done that if they had
been left to themselves.—(" Hear, hear," from the Earl
of Stanhope.) The merchants had had notice of the in-
tentions of the Chinese Government in an edict issued by
the Governor of Canton in January 1839, six weeks before
the arrival of the High Commissioner. Of this the Bri-
tish merchants had taken no notice. When he arrived his
first object was to get rid of the receiving
ships at Lintin. There were two courses open to him
to attain this object—one to destroy them by a naval force,
the other to seize the merchants connected with them.
Although at one time inclined to adopt the first, he had
ultimately determined on adopting the latter alternative ;
and it should be recollected, that according to the Chinese
law the whole society war equally guilty, having identified
themselves with the really guilty parties. The Noble
Earl concluded by expressing a hope, that any future com-
munications of the British Government with China would
not have for their objects eny compensation for past inju-
ries, or any extension of territory, but the protection of
our trade with that country.
Lord ELLENBOROUG H should not have addressed
the House, were it not for some observations which had
been made by the Noble Viscount. The Noble Vis-
count said that by acceding to the motion of the
Noble Earl, they would by so doing hold eut pros-
pects which they could not realize, and they would
embarrass our negociations with the Chinese Government.
He thought that the Noble Viscount should have refrained
from these statements. The Noble Viscount seemed
clsirous that we should change the nature of our trade
wish China, and that it should be placed more immediately
under the control of the Government. But it should be
observed that under any circumstances the smuggling of
opium could not be prevented, and that wes proved by all
the transactions which had taken place on the subject. The
only result of attempting to suppress the growth of opium
in British India, would be to remove it to other countries,
over which we had no control. The more violent their
efforts would be to extinguish the trade in question, the
more certainly would they force it into other hands,
and render it what it could not now be con-
sidered, piratical.--(Hear, hear.) He hoped that any
interference on the part of the British Government would
merely be directed to placing the trade in opium on a
snore permanent basis, and not altogether to suppress it.
Lord MELBOURNE agreed in the opinion of the
Noble Lord, and he had merely addressed his objections to
the address of the Noble Earl which had for its object the
entire extinction of the trade in opium.
Lord A SHBURTON said that he could not give his
support to a motion which completely condemned the
opium trade. What surprised him in the history of our
transactions with China was, that greater eff,rts had not
been made to reason with the Chinese authorities. It was
manifest that these authorities were possessed of great
acuteness, and he believed that temperate communications
made to such persons would have been attended, and might
still attended, with satisfactory results. As to
Captain Elliot's conduct, he (Lord Ashburton)
would not pretend to judge, the more particularly because
on all the more important points the information contained
in the Blue Book was very imperfect, and he had heard it
denied that the pressure on the persons put in confinement
was so great as had been asserted.--(" Hear, hear," from
Lord Stanhope.) He could not help remarking also, that
on the extremely alight information which was possessed by
their Lordships, or by the public, as to the proceedings
hereafter to be adopted. All that was known was that a
great armament was to be sent out. It would seem that
the negociations were to be conducted by a gentleman, at
all events, of the same name as Captain Elliot. He
thought that objectionable, as tending to prejudice the
Chinese—(Hear)—and he considered the Government
should have charged the negociations in higher and more
responsible hands, with some direct communication between
the Queen and the Emperor of China—( Hear, hear)—
for the Chinese had ever attached great respect for the
embassies of considerable authorities—be, might add that
the Governor-General of India would have made a very
eligible and influential Ambassador to Pekin. He would,
in conclusion, express a hope that no force would be used
against the Chinese further than was necessary to obtain a
'ust and equitable settlement. —( Hear.)
Earl STANHOPE said through the whole discussion
not a single argument had been adduced against his case.
He repeated what he had often said, that from 1836 the
Chinese Government had been earnest in suppressing the
traffic. As to the Address being likely
.to be injurious to
certain negotiations with the Chinese, so far from that
being the case, he believed it would be necessary to form
the basis of a good negotiation. And here he must ;ex-
press his extreme astonishment at the speech of the Noble
Baron (Ellenborough), who did not seem ;to care much
whether the opium trade was moral or not. The Noble
Baron seemed t o say, " Other nations will do wrong—
therefore we may; fas aut nefas, the Noble Baron cared
not—the trade was profitable. The Noble Duke also ap-
peared to have some very peculiar notions about interna-
tional law. Because the Chinese differed from us in many
respects they should not be refused the justice which other
nations received at our hands. He was prepared for the
opposition of the Noble Duke. but he was not prepared for
the strange, the unaccountable course which the Noble
Duke had followed. The Noble Duke did not know what
the previous question meant. It implied that the time was
not proper for discussing the question. Did the Noble
Duke mean to regulate his course by the success of the ar-
mament, for to be consistent with his speech he should
have met the motion by a direct and manly negative ? His
Noble Friend (Lord Ellenborough) bad sneered at broad
cloth, but the manufacturers were convinced that the legal
trade with China would be endanged by the continuance of
the opium traffic. Without entering further into the mighty
argument, he should record his vote against that policy of
the Government which had produced the present state of
things.

The previous question was then carried, and
The House adjourned at Ten o'Clock.

Two Novels are on the stocks—both by ladies—
which keep the " readers" of London in an agony of expecta-
tion. The one, "Emily, or tre Countess of Rosendale," is
by Mrs. Moberly, from whose acknowledged talents, moving as
she does in circles where everything is known, which, till it is
" handed down," remains unknown to those below—much is
anticipated. Little, however, is to be feared by those who may
be obnoxious to her remarks ; for genius, qualified with good-
ness of heart, and excellence of temper, is not likely to wound,
however much a knowledge of society may render it compe-
tent to a genuine display of character. The other work is
" Ernestine, ' a story of real life, by Miss Blackwell, which
also has put the town in a tremor. We do not profess to know
anything of the particulars of the history, but that it involves
persons " all alive and living," as Mr:Polito would say, we
do know. Of this sort of book we certainly have an opinion
of our own; and if we ever had the power or talent to write
a novel, no power would indace us to devote the talent or
power to anything verging on personalty. What the views or
motives of the "Lady of Fashion," who is so announced as the
author of " Ernestine," may be, we do not know ; but this
wo know, that of scarcely any novel announced for publication
was ever so many copies bespoke as of this.—John Bull,
During the debate on Lord Darlington's notion
to issue the writ for Ludlow, Colonel Salwey, IVI•Dr-dibsrai Lud-
low, low, received intelligence that his brother, Ed
Esq., of the Lodge, Ludlow, had departed this Such
melancholy melancholy piece of information compelled Colonel Salwey to
absent himself from the House of Commons.

.F. V ENING EDITION.

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE, MAY 12.
Notice is hereby given, that the Queen will hold a Drawing-
room at St. James's Palace, on Monday, the 25th instant, at
two o'clock, to eclebrate her Majesty's Birth-day.
iN.B. The Knights of the several Orders are to appear in
their Collars.

WHITEHALL, MAY 4.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Edward Glynn, of Hex-
ham, Northumberland, Gent., Anthony Adey, of Wotton-un-
der-Edge, Gloucestershire, Gent., and William Salmon, of
Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, Gent., to be Masters Extraordt.
nary in the High Court of Chancery.

WHITEHALL, MAT 9.
The Queen has been pleased to grant the place of one of the
Lords of Session in Scotland to James Ivory, Esq., her Ma-
jestv's Solicitor-General for Scotland, in the room of Sir Wil-
liam Miller, Bart, resigned.
The Queen has also been pleased to direct letters patent to be
passed under the Seal appointed by the Treaty of Unio:n to be
made use of in place of the Great Seal of Scotland, granting the
office of her Majesty's Solicitor-General for Scotland to Thomas
Maitland, Esq„ Advocate.

Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Essex.
H. J. Sperling, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant, April 30.
Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall.
Sir J. W. Copley, Bart., to be Deputy Lieutenant; J. S.
Trelawny, Esq , to be ditto, May 7.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Hampshire.
North Hants Yeomanry Cavalry—Cornet W. J. Long to be
Lieutenant, vice W. C. Yonge, resigned, April 30.

Erratum in the Gazette of th'e 28t.h of April last.
Southern Regiment of West Riding Yeomanry Cavalry.--
For John Preston, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Greaves, April
20, read Charles Preston, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Greaves,
April 20.

BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
THOMAS BARON, cotton-spinner, Great Bolton, Lan
cashire.

BANKRUPTS.

THOMAS ELY, victualler, Gedling, Nottinghamshire,
to surrender May '2O and June 23, at twelve, at the George the
Fourth Inn, Nottingham. Campbell and Witty, Essex-street,
Strand, London ; Fox and Lowe, Nottingham.
NOAH BACKHOUSE, gun-maker, Southwold, Suffolk,
May 20, at two, and June 23, at ten, at the King's Head Inn,
Beccles, Suffolk. Kirk,. Symond's-inn, Chancery-lane, Lon-
don ; wington, Ipswich.
JAMES BROWN and BENJAMIN BROWN, grocers,
Birmingham, May 28 and June 23, at eleven, at the Swan
Hotel, Wolverhampton. Clarke and Medcalf,
fields, London; Bennett, Wolverhampton.
SAMUEL TILDESLEY, jun., coal dealer, Leamington-
priors, Warwickshire, May 27, at twelve, and June 23, at
eleven, at the Lansdowne Hotel, Leamington-priors. Cary, St.
Swithin's-lane, London ' • Kitchin, Warwick.
ROBERT ROBERTS,S, currier, Yoxford, Suffolk, May
25, and June 23, at ten, at the Bell Inn. Orford Hill, Nor-
wich. Drake, Bungay, Suffolk ; Nicholls and Son, Cook's-
court, Lincoln's-Inn.
JOHN WHEATLEY, jun., grocer, Leicester, May 19 and
June 23, at ten, at the Castle, at Leicester. Broughton, Fal-
con-square, London ; Briggs, Leicester.
WILLIAM HOWELLS, miller, of the Old Mill, parish o.f_
Goodrich, Herefordshire, May 20 at one, and June 23 B.V
eleven, at the King's Head Hotel, Ross. Hall, Ross ; Switia
and Son, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury-square, London.
THOMAS EAGLE JONES, leather seller, Birmingham, '•
May 22, and June 23, at two, at the New Royal Hotel, Bir-
mingham. Ellerton and Phillott, Clement's-lane, London,
Wills and Oliver, Birmingham.
WILLIAM NICHOLL, worsted spinner, Warley, York•
shire, May 25, at one, and June 23, at nine, at the Shakspeal
Inn, Halifax. Wiglesworth, Ridsdale, and Craddock, Grays
Inn-square, London ; Stansfeld and Craven, Halifax.
ABRAHAM BRYANT, auctioneer, Shepton Mallet, So-
mersetshire, June 2, at one, and 23, at ten, at the Mitre In",
Wells. Stiles, Shepton Mallett.
JOSEPH M'LINTOCK. ,
Yorkshire, May 26, and June 23, at eleven, at the Barnsley,
Town-hall,
Sheffield. Mence, Barnsley ; Pocock and Wilkin, Bartholo-
mew-close, London.
CHARLTON HENRY SLOMAN and HENRY P
Gruen,
and tobacconists, West Strand, May 19, at half-past
and June 23, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Aldernsanbury, official assignee ; Henson, Mark-lane.
ard-
JOHN CAFFYN, picture-dealer, Brighton, and of How
street, Strand, May 21, at half-past one, and June 33, at eleven.
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Al
church-lane ; Cross, Surrey-street, Strand.
en'
RODNEY BAILIES, draper, Merthyr Tydvil, Glut
ganshire, May 22, and June 23, at twelve, at the Commercial
Rooms, Bristol. Holme, Loftus, and Young, New-inu, Lon-
don ; Prideaux, Bristol.
THOMAS NASH, grocer, Sulhampstead Banister, Berk-
shire. May 26, and June 23, at twelve, at the Broad Face DO,
Reazling, Weedon, Reading; Hill, Copthall-court, Throg-
morton-stre et, London.
JOHN CHAMBERLAIN, glass and lead merchant, Lisson-t
grove North, Paddington, May 22, at twelve, and June 23,
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.. Turqnand, official as-
signee, Copthall-buildings ; Wadeson, Austinfriars.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Baulinghall-street.
D. Smith, coach maker, King-street, Golden-square, Jun-
4, at half-past one—S. Wise and C. Brenehley, paper make'
Mildred's-court, Poultry, City, June 2, at half-past eleven—R'
Jones, linen draper, Pavement, Moorfields, City, June 2, a`
eleven—J. D. Stevens, paper maker, Two Waters, Hertford-
shire, June 2, at half-past eleven—C. Hart and T. Levrellior
woollen warehousemen, Newgate-street, City, June 2, at twelve
.--T. H. Macleod, merchant, Tokenhouse-yard, City, June 4•
as half-past twelve—W. Goodall and .7. Turner, merchants,
Garlick-hill, City, June 4, at half-past eleven—T. Johnston,
draper, King's-place, Commercial-road June 4, at Wel"
—J. Reynolds, wine -merchant, Idol-lant., Tower-street, City,
June 4, at eleven—W. Reynolds and M. M. Wright, mer-
chants, Idol-lane, 'rower-street, City, June 4, at eleven--E•
Saunders, grocer, Chesham, Buckinghamshire, June 2, at eleven.
In the Country.
P. Gregory, cotton spinner,Downall-gretm, Lancashire, Jeol
2, at twelve, at the Commissioners'-rooms, _Manchester J. P.
Butler, wine merchant, Cheltenham, Glouct•stershire, Juae 3,
at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Cheltenham— Davis, chemist,
Arundel, Sussex, June 3, at twelve, at the Dolphin Inn, Chi'
jchuenste3r,—atM.ojmeronnienyosacmriveAnerrm,
sSherinn,a%Siuh.ffrnoilpsit
A.n
Sat l atnheer
Lecki't , , grocer, Cengleton, Cheshire, June 12, at three, st,, w„;
Angel Inn, Macclesfield—J. Bradbury, cutler, Sheffield. ;Lu—
ll, at one, at the Town-hall, Sheffield—T. ;Becks, '
!won!. -
dealer, Manchester, June 4, at eleven, at the Come,
rooms, Manchester—D. 13. Smith, jun , tea dealer'
ham, June 5, at twelve, at the New Royal. Hotol,atat
—l3. W. Franklin, merchant, Liverpool, June 6, threei,
the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool—J. Riley, builder, Bordes ey,
Birmingham, Jane 5, at one, at the New Royal, Birn2inghani.
CERTIFICATES.—JUNE g.
W. Lloyd,
J. A. Howe, umbrella manufacturer, Bristol—L. - • F.
hotel keeper, Royal Hotel, Richmond, Surrey—J. Kinder'Alle
Phillips, lamp manufacturers, Birmingham—J. M. D.
baker, Fetter-lane, City—C. Watson, carpenter, Braintree,
Essex—W. Bracher, painter, Great Ormond-street—J. Jenk 9
•
lace manufacturer, Nettinham.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
G. 11. Jones, M. Grimsher, and J. Grimsher, clieescrnoLi:
gers, New Bridge-street, Vauxhall—W. Stagg, C. Stagg, ti
Stagg, 11. Stagg, E. Stagg, E. Stagg, and I L J. Slat
farmers, Nether Avon-Farm, Wiltshire (so far as regards the
said W. Stagg)—R. C. James and C. Robinson, cotton dealer',
Greenacres-moor, Lancashire—W. and J. Hubble, farnl
Quakers'-hall, Sevenoaks, Kent—T. Whiteside and J.
Deacon, eating house keepers, Liverpool—T. Errington an
W. Jenkins, hackney coach proprietors, Leeds—T. Lockwood'
J. Thornton, and 11. Leah, cotton spinners, Salford, Lanes;
shire (as far as regards the said H. Leah)—E. Lambert aaal
H. H. Burder, solicitors—J. Hall and E. W. Croxon, gener
merchants, Liverpool—W. Deverill and T. Hucknall, cheese'
mongers, Nottingham—A. Lees, son. and A. Lees, iu-n•'
miners, New Earth, Lancashire—W. Millidge and J. C. D
Croz, glass manufacturers, Skinner-street, Snow-hill, City--
J. Maxfield, J. Maxfield, and J. Smith, linen drapers, Levre,
Sussex—H. and T. Bainbridge, blacksmiths, St. Peter's, lgew,7
castle-upon-Tyne—A. Newberry and H. Parsons. wholf.sa!o
grocers, Bristol—S. Parsons and B. Beetson, butchers,
beach, Lincolnshire—W. Binns, J. Bins, and A. F. Binns,
stuff merchants, Leeds—M. Spain and J. F. Cork, eVe
makers, New Bond-street—W. Finch and H. Lacy,
asylum keepers, Laverstock, Wiltshire—J. Nowell,
Nowell, and J. W. Nowell, general contractors for public
works, Hatchend, Middlesex.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
ROBERT ANGUS, leather merchant, Perth, MAY 16 and
June 6, at one, at the George Inn, Perth. h gay
WILLIAM M'ISAAC, furnishing tailor, Edinburg,' b.
14 and June 4, at three, at the Guildford Arms Inn, Edinburg
,
KENNETH MA C K NZ IE, merchant, Beauly, Inverness.
shire, May 19 and June 9, atone, at the Royal Hotel, Inverne:nd
WILLIAM AIKEN, ironmonger, Cumnock, Mal 18
June 6, at twelve, at the Black Bull Inn, Cumnock,
WILLIAM HOWE and DAVID DUFF, mere Lfhants.
otel,
Dundee, May 18 and June 8, at twelve, at the British Hod'
Dundee.

,
. ge„oa
POWERFUL MUSICAL BOXES, In ','„s,r2.
Cases, Twelve Inches Long by Five Inches Wide, each Pla.'s-0":
or In
Four Airs, with the mechanism finished in a very superi
ner, are offered for Five Guineas Each. Also a few of Oa.°
description, larger sizes, et the fo:lowing prices :
Six Airs .. X 7 7
Eight Airs
Eight Airs extra, large l4 14 0
Three Overtures
At T. COX SAVORY'S,
Working Silversmith, Goldsmith, and Watchmaker, 47, C 431.1-
hill (Seven doors from Gracechurch-street), London .
N.l3.—The small Musical Boxes, 31 Inches Long. eontl
selling
in tin cases, price 19s. each, or in composition..sW
cases, 235. each.
he bSa
A Catalogue containing a List of the Music MAY "; 'd
gratis, or can be forwarded, post ree, in answer to a Pos'''r
application.

On the .sth inst., in Lloilydl-2sqTualeB,.the lady of W. 11' hens
'
Esq., of a daughter.
Pad-
On the Bth inst., at Farehara, Hants, the wife of J. -
don, Esq., of a
nst., the daughter.
On the 9th i lady of W. T. Squire, Esq., of Bart°l"
place, Suffolk, of a son.
On the 9th inst., at Manchester, the lady of J. Reid' Esl'
of a daughter.
O. the 9th inst., at New Cross, Old Kent-road, Mrs' J.
Barlow, jun., of a daughter.
Esoq.n,
othfea 10th inst. at Colebrooke-park, the lady of T. Browtit
On the Ith inst., in Myddleton-square;Mrs. T. Y—i °P' of
a son.
On the 11th inst., at Poplar, Mrs. T. W. ilarby, of nn.," of
On the Bth inst., at Ebbw-vale, Monmouthshire, the 'au]
C. L. Harford, Esq., of a daughter.

MARRIED.
On the sth inst., at Henfield, Commander T. Smith, R.N.,
of Shore-
to Susanna, daughter of the late J. B. Norton, Esq.,O
ham, Sussex.
n the 7th inst.. at Bathwick parish church, Bath, G.
Sharp, Esq., 8.A., only son of W. Sharp, Esq., to Sarah, onlydaughter of the late J. D. Maycock, Esq
On the 9th inst., at St. Pancras, Euston-square,
secs P'
Townsend, Esq., of Witney, Oxon,
to Marianne' nd
e,
daughter of Mr. J. Green, of Amwell-street, Claremont-squat
London.

DIED.
On the 7th of March, at Bombay, Captain F. D.
Bagshawe,,
of the sth Regiment Bengal Native Infantry},
y, seventh son 64
the late Sir W. C. Bagshae, of the Oaks Derbyshire.
On the Ist inst., at Talgarth, Merionethshire, tliza, the wife
of C. T. Thurston, Esq., R.N., and second daughter of the late
Admiral Sotheby.
On the 9th inst., at South Lambeth, Mrs. Howis, aged 83.
On the 10th inst., at Millfield House, Edmonton, M. pommel,
youngest daughter of Captain Deare, R.N., aged nine month'

London: Printed nil Published bv MUPDO VOUNG. vi
No. 11_', •1/4;!tr:alii, at TheSrr,, Of o. HZ Strnn:l in.l.e
"""tY of IV.iiddleex.—Weduesday, May 13, 1640