The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-25 00:00:00

wished to lay before them a little of the fallacies of the last
speaker. When he spoke incorrectly he hoped the meet-
ing would allow of correction. He had said in the resolu-
tion that opium was introduced by British subjects. He
begged leave to ask him whether a great number of the
subjects of other countries did not also introduce
it. He totally denied the fact so stated, that British
ships sailed up to the port of Canton for the pur-
pose of disposing of opium. It was a falsehood—not a
single ounce was ever distributed there by British subjects.
lie proved this fact to them by stating that the water would
not admit of it. It was not deep enough to admit any
other craft than the junks of the country. Ile did not
come there to disturb the meeting, nor did he expect the
meeting was ass ex parte one, and now he understood the
chairman was a Peer, he expected perfect disinterested-
ness in every point. He had heard so much matter uncon-
nected with this subject that he thought a word or two
might be said respecting it. He came to defend the
war with China. It was in no ways connected
with trade. Among other fallacies of the last speaker he
said that ho would much rather beearaChinreessett would sayhana
For Bri-
ton, any
otherever defend his country, not only
so.wit his He
s his dido
partho would
person,n t asthink
he ha had done, but in princple, and in ar-
gument, and in every way that became an Englishman.
—( Laughter.) Did they suppose he would stand there to
ehrerurPtwede,rsaen—d
iaastiofrnequoeele'talysioned much laughter, was
(wthleorsee the
run down his country—quite
pe-
culiarspeaker,prwohnounAc.
compelled by the noise and laughter of the audience to
desist.) He therefore moved as an amendment, that
the word Chinese be substituted for the word British in
the resolution.
The CHAIRMAN asked if any gentleman seconded the
resolution ? when a gentleman stepped upon the platform,
and gave his name as
Mr. ROBERTSON—He said that he should feel himself
guilty of an act of moral cowardice if after hearing the
strong terms which had been used in designating the
opinions which lie conscientiously held, he were silent.
There had not been a single word said in respect to
the opium question, as it affected the honour, welfare, and
moral character of the country, in which he did not cordi-
ally concur. He would deserve to have his tongue blis-
tered if he uttered one word in defence or approbation of
a traffic for bringing into China a drug, every dram of
which contained a pestilence more fearful than had ever
walked in darkness.—( Cheers.) Having stated this opinion
with regard to the opium trade, why was he there to move
an amendment? Simply because he contended they were
mistaken. He disagreed with them in point of fact—he
said this was not, an opium war.—( Cheers.) What was
the fact ? Had the British Government entered into an
opium war?—(Cheers ) If it had the vengeance of
Heaven hung over it---(Cheers)—but he thanked God,
for the sake of his country, that such was not the case.—
( Cheers.) This was not an opium war. He believed the
opium trade had been the unfortunate and melancholy
occasion of the war, but it was not the cause of the
war. When he had first announced that opinion their
Noble Chairman had told him that this was a distinction
without a difference.—(Cheers.) He would state how it
was the occasion without being the cause. We were not
going to fight about opium—we had given it up—that was
his t point—and be wished to draw the attention
of the meeting to that point. (Loud cheers.)
He would in the first place refer to the instructions given
to Lord Napier. He had been instructed by Lord Pal-
merston carefully to abstain from any connection with any
trade interfering with the laws or customs of the Celestial
Empire. How had this been followed up ? It happened
that in endeavouring to suppress the opium traffic they took a
Chinese who had been engaged in it, and strangled him in
front of the foreign factories. The whole of the foreigners
rose, and caused a riot. What had been the conduct of
the British Government ? Having carefully read the large
Blue Book, which had been laid before Parliament, and
which he was certain had never been read by certain gen-
tlemen who had spoken on this subject that morning,
he would challenge any person to point out a single pas-
sage showing that the British Government had
ever interfered in favour of the opium trade.—
(Great cheering.) Lord Palmerston had sent out
a strong reprimand, forbidding British subjects interfering
with Chinese usages, or from infringing in any manner
the laws of the Celestial Empire. He would chal-
lenge any one to contradict that fact. Did the British
Superintendent mix himself up with the defence of the
iniquities of the opium smugglers ? The statement was not
true—ho had not done so ; on the contrary, he had issued
orders to compel every boat engaged in the opium
trade to leave the Canton River. This was in Dec., 1838.
In December 1538 such an edict was issued by Captain
Elliot; could that, he would ask, be contradicted?—
(Cheers.) Further, when the opium traffic had thus been
suppressed, so far as the connection of British subjects was
concerned, it naturally took another course ; instead of
being a peaceful smuggling traffic, it became a bucca-
neering one.—(Laughter.) Th© thing went on, and all
over the coast the smugglers were engaged in their nefa-
rious proceedings, the British merchants having washed
their hands of any responsibility.—( Cries of " No, no.")
He would say yes; for out of the two hundred merchants
there the Chinese admitted only fifteen had been guilty.
Now, when the trade was going on in that way, what
did Captain; Elliot do ? He expelled all British subjects
who were denounced by the Chinese Government as being
concerned in the opium traffic.—( Cries of " No.") Mr.
James Innes was expelled. That was a strong
fact, showing that the British Superintendent was
not the cause of the opium traffic.—(Hear.) What
then was the cause of the war? Let those who followed meet
that cause ; it had three points, and let them knock down
one of them if they could. The first was, reparation for
insults—(Cheers) ; secondly, indemnification for losses ;
and, thirdly, for protection for British subjects.—( Cheers.)
Now he would say a few words on these points. The
Chinese Government, in carrying out its exclusive policy,
determined that no foreign power except Russia should
have any direct communication with its authorities. This
state of things subsisted for many years, but it became, in
1834, an object to our Government to obtain direct com-
munication with the Celestial Empire. This was refused.
It was said to Lord Napier that they would not admit him
as an equal, and that his letter must be addressed with a
mark which showed that he was not so. To this Lord
Napier demurred ; and for this he had every species
of insult put upon him. He was compelled to leave
Canton, and to go to Macao, where he died. Capt. El-
liot succeeded him, and he signed his letter as required,
signifying that he was inferior to the Emperor. This was
done for peace. Did the Chinese lessen their demands ?
No, so far from this, the time came when the most
vigorous means were necessary to put down the opium
trade. They told all the foreigners at Canton that they
should neither have food or water until all the smuggled
goods had been delivered up. What were the terms in
which that was done ? Why, when a quarter of it was
given up the me. chants were to have the attendance of
their servants, food and water. When three-fourths was
given up the trade was to be opened ; and, lastly, when
the whole was given up,ithe trade was to be continued.
( Hear.) Now, not one of those stipulations had been
kept by the Chinese. The trade in tea had fresh restric-
tions put upon it, and instead of British subjects being
allowed the same liberties they formerly had, their factories
had been made garrisons. This was the state of things in
Canton when Captain Elliot took upon himself the re-
sponsibility of delivering up the opium, and throwing on
the British Government the question whether they wished
their subjects to be treated in this way.—(Cheers.) The
question then assumed other shapes. It happened that a
Chinese subject was in a broil, in which both an American
wed a British seaman was concerned. He met his death,
and Captain Elliot proposed a joint investigation by the
Chinese and British authorities, for the purpose of detect-
ing his murderer. This the Chinese Government refused;
but they demanded the production, if not of the
murderer, of one who might suffer for him.
The Chinese authorities threatened extermination if an
Englishman was not delivered up. The Chinese Admiral
requested Captain Smith to remove his ships a little fur-
ther down the river. To this Captain Smith assented,
anxious for peace.—( Hear, hear.) But then the Chinese
Admiral endeavoured with twenty-nine war junks to inter-
cept the British frigaes. Against this, of course, Captain
Smith took an objection, and desired their withdrawal.
This was refused, and as they continued advancing he fired
on, and sunk half a dozen.—( Cries of " Served them
right," and much cheering.) Now those were to be re-
spected, undoubtedly, who objected to war, their senti-
men's called forth the best and purest of the sympathies
of our nature. But the promoters of this meeting should
be told that reprisals did not constitute war—( Hear)_.
and no doubt the first proposal by those who conducted
the expedition against the Chinese would be for enter-
ing into negotiations with the Chinese Government, and
for entering into those diplomatic relations which it
had hitherto refused, and if China still was deaf to their
pacific and reasonable overtures, the appeal would justly be
made to the God of Battles—(Cheers)—under whose Pro-
vidence, as truth and love were the strongest feelings, right
and might would ultimately be united.—(Great uproar,)
In conclusion, the worthy gentleman moved an alteration
in the amendment, to which as it stood he said he would
not assent—that alteration being to the effect that the
meeting regretted that the opium war " might have been
the unhappy occasion, though not the cause, of reprisals
against China."—(Cheers and laughter.)
No other person offering to second the first amendment,
the Noble Chairman declared it to be unanimously ne-
gatived.
Mr. APDoweee came forward to second the second
amendment, but he was met with such constant interrup-
tions from various parts of the room, and which were con_
tinued notwithstanding the frequent interference of the
severely tried by Mr.
The patience of the meeting was
Chairman, that not two consecutive sentences of his speech
were heard.
APDowall persisting in his harangue, but the good temper
of the audience was restored by Boatswain Smith, who
with a half dozen of the children of his school occu-
pied one of the forms in the body of the meeting ex-
" Does the gentleman's soother Know he is out ?"
Mr. APl:o.)watt hiving exhausted himself, retired, and
The CHAIRMAN observed that he should consider it an
unpardonable waste of the time of the meeting if he at-
tempted to answer anything that had been said by the
mover of the first amendment. As to the seconder
uce of the
second e
second amendment, he had not heard him any
Laughter.)argument.—(
he would not make one
tleman, he would simply say that
ind monstrous doctrine, which,
though he was far advanced
observation upon that new an,ears,
he had for the first
3
With respect to the other gen_
ht b
hear, and loud cheers.)
considered as right.—Hear,
give the gentleman
Before he put the resolution he would.
anything
who had moved it an opportunity of explaining
time in his life that day heard—that mig was to e
be had said.
A person in the body of the meeting here rose, and said
he had an amendment to move upon the amendment that
had been moved.—( Loud cries of " Order," " Chair.")
He wished to know whether it was a public or a private
meeting?—(Cries of " Order.")
allusion to the words
Mr. RQBERTSON said a few words in explanation of his
might constituting right." They
had escaped him in the course of an extempore address,
and certainly he could not make such a statement unless
in reference to the decrees of Providence, where truth and
love were the strongest, and that in them might and right
were identified.—( Hear, and cheers.)