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 trationh, n longer
sat upon that side of the House.—( Hear, earo .) -He
hoped, however, the Right Hon. Gentlemen the Secretary
at War, and the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies,
• would admit the identity 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 matter. 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
moment. 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
no resident political public officer, 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
sent by the Noble Lord to have led as much as anything
i to tie present cessation of our present friendly intercourse
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 communication, 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 occasioned 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 •••the •-• duties 'AI you- predecessors you mutt
t per o.rn sari, A •
perform them in the same way ; they conformed to our
.' usage, and you must do the sa,olo. It is an old saying
when you come into a country
i
there is no necessity for a incietire into its:customs;
peosie
.„.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) knew 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 Ministerial bensehes.) He
knew what was passing in the minds of Gene
I m en OPP°-
site. The Duke of Wellington was then in efCce, and
there was a fact in connection with the letter of the • Duke
of Wellington, to which attention had not been ca Jled--
1 " Never did an' individual get such credit fora few .lilies-
,
and after all, there is not much in them," f
said the Hon.
i Member for Liskeard ; but he (Mr. Hogg) begged sa:e- at-
tention of the House to this fact. The despatches of Lt ‘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. Davis and Si Geori Sir e. Ro-
; binson were in China as Superintendents 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 directly; Sir Georgeol• Robinson stated the success of
the quiescent policy. The e Noble Lord received this c a
the 6th, and on the
next day the Noble Lord wrote a let -
Captain ter superseding him. Elliot saw the exped lent Y
• of following the )
course
George Robinson, and d
and by remaining at Ma.cao
and applying for a pass, he 'obta°innedming
idadeopted by Mr. Davis arid .iil •
not attfempt toteprettsetihreespaoge irds,,
the advantage of th '-
sect communication, and was going on well ?
In his first
with the Chi--
nese authorities, but what was die u
11
despatch he said that be would not insist upont
munication, and that he bad obtained leave
to go
corn-
Capt.gEo l t re_
to Can_.
Can-.
i ton. On the 21st of November, 1837,
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 ve,
as suggested by the Hon. Member for Newark ( Mit.
Gladstone), 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
dhat did it signify to show that if he ;had
wouldfa have come of it ?" They 1 'light
there
hraads theyteee likedni !, it was enor gh for i
of the Noble Lord, and that blame atgtagcheendcetocnhil'acf
If the Noble Lord h
without instructions
he was unable •
a tol
at all, Captain
pa. rt
toati. :not to go to'n
Cohri:lt;
inth,a_teh(eakir
iciosgogl)ittle .about it
to instruct him, he
understood it. But that w courd have
Lord sent a
• .Commissioner ... . Ilse. The N
giving authority ; and ;,., .' r.°Posmg to instruct,Noble
"cunt
'lid give to him were. 1., of fact, the iu and
,'.i- , ,fiir Liskeard said hea" tea tt' Denourabt- use ~,.c i
',-.. Iltiff464 11%1.9.a jocose way of meeting a•np.b,,aa eor "no.'-nedn'' it.
, ; eeSeewed:_tlie!6koers excited alarm acid '"e question., t ;
not such as tile occasionsPeeili''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 ad
, and th
anca
hwhat was 11
1'41%9 deSPtI , , piie ho should fully
INVAigh! ag;inst_lhiln. Ile would reada;
! e "liou;;ht--clat,iil have given alarm to the
~,„ ve. shown Illri that our le - •
-**tif " ' Ile
r. e others
theonourablr
driett and apprehe n:. it
he
he
sijo.ht nsi on, 1 a
u, .. rests in Chi' a er,!
est atte vim 'a--
justify the ch a ffto,
C W ex tra ei
,s v
,11%
Noble L on ',, and
Cllr. Drreassoe, 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 received at the
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 principle, 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
pretend 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 upon England to suppress 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 magniloquence, 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? Were they not
nw 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 ushpatmo tirer last
re pm, ern that all the proceedings 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 the Hen. Member for Beverley (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 Cosamittee. 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,
or memorandum,he left of disposition to suppress the opium
, trade.—( Hear, hear.) Well, what was it that should in .
d,. ice 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 power without coming front
talab,• 'of Parliament. What powers 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'per
ei ns ,
pc,
he. 4.11.) endent 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 from Lintin, and every
trade out of eea. ,
f China—act on cur order." Why,
e
port on the coastavoin
Z the pleasure of seeing the Sheriifs
nd't.he Lord Mayor with petitions, com.
th at would be occasioned to British
1, all those topics enlarged upon
iapngi daa ei
innpl i enangt d
theoe of
h si ‘
subjects, ,
,1 t' hay". b • h t ability by the Hoe-
s. eed v"t grea
which were 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 stoppew -nen was man, and so beg
sequences have been, so long as -
ey principle that ought
as the love of money overcame ct, ,ko
change the scene of
is govern the human 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 omission 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 Gas: i
tohne,
oboe
mwouldt
et rdo
suubbl
jee tche t
wHseouoludallwoiwth. hils 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 igthhetreHfoorne.,Ftrhieenyd
wweonutldtoinntoetrhfienrge
ttehaptrtehe
prevent
motionit—( ofC hheiesrs. ) He must be permitted 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 might also have been asleep
—a Committee the naming of which had not been gone
into for ten or twelve days after it had been ap-
pointed ? The seizure of the opium was the cardinal
point upon which all turned, 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 Commons
Rsi
at
Friend ti e
e.----C
did nothe
callers. )
upon The
them
t was to be done with China.
Did it ask whether we were to go to war with China?
Did it take away any cause to prevent that war, or tell
the Governor-General of India that it was his duty to
( motion
to settle
of his
such
ht
t
suspend those operations—those preparations
le of the Govan:-
'
been undertaken upon the iesponsibi y
rneut? Not one of those things would the motion do if
which had
.
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 Government for having been the
cage of that war, which they said was a calamity ;
yet they did eething whatever, except tryhingdid not to get
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 point of communication with the Government was
conceded. Now it was right to remind the House, the
authority of that great man, the Duke of Wellington, was
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 deficiency 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 he thourslit
he should be taunted with the part he had takeo in