The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-08 00:00:00

him adequate power. He admitted that he was
in office, and was responsible both for the Act
opening the trade with China, and the Orders in
Council appointing a Superintendent, and giving him
instructions. He admitted that there were f wits in the
original instructions, such as ordering the Superinten-
dent to take up his residence at Canton, and such as
directing him to communicate directly with the Vice-
roy of Canton,instead of through the Hong mer-
chants ; but he contended that subsequently to his
leaving office the faults and errors of those instructions
became known ; they were pointed out with great clear-
ness by the !memorandum drawn up by the Duke of
WELLINGTON ; they were repeatedly brought underthe
notice of the Ministers by their own officers at Canton,
but they had paid no attention to these representations
—they had not answered the communications—they
had given the Superintendent no fresh instructions—they
had not increased his power, and they were responsible
by their negligence for the present crisis in our affairs.
The Right Hon. Baronet spoke feelingly of Lord
NAPIER, though he was obliged to censure some of his
conduct ; he praised the proceedings of Sir GEORGE
ROBINSON and of Captain ELI.IOT, down to the time
when he made unprovokedly the attack on the Chinese
junks. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by draw-
ing a picture of the great expense and danger which
would be involved in the war with China, which he
said would not be a little war ; and, by declaring that
the people would not place confidence in those who
had destroyed this valuable trade, and all but plunged
us into a war in which success could bring no glory,
and defeat would be ruin and shame.

Mr. MACAULAY replied to the Right Hon. Baronet. I
He observed conclusively, but briefly, that the points
of accusation on which the Right Hon. Baronet had
relied, had completely failed. It was a satisfaction to
him that in a series of transactions, extending over five
years, the Right Hon. Baronet could only find sins
of omission, with which to accuse the Minis-
ters. The paucity of instructions, of which
Sir JAMES GRAHAM complained, was wise at
sach a distance ; as those despatches which
would be scant and meagre, if sent `to Paris,
might be sufficient at the other side of the globe, where
men must necessarily be guided by their own d•s_irc-
tion. India must be governed, it was said, in India,
and the English trade with Canton could only be ju-
diciouslyinterfered with by some one on the spot. The
first ground of Sir JAMES GRAHAm's complaint of the
errors of the instructions in regard to the Su2erinten-
dent residing in Canton, was disproved by the statement
that Captain ELLIOT had succeeded in taking up his
residence there. The second, that he was only to cram-
municar.e with the Viceroy, was equally futile, far
Captain ELLIOT had actually established that mode of
communication. The third, that Lord PALMERSTON
had not, according to the advice of the Duke of
WELLINGTON, sent a stout frigate and a smaller
vessel of war to the assistance of the Sup,:r-
intendent, was shown to be a misunderstanding of the
Duke's recommendation, which was confined to the
time when the trade was disturbed, and for more than
two years subsequently to that recommendation, the
trade had been carried quietly on. Mr. -MACAULAY
might have strengthened this part of his case by referring
to what Sir JAMES GRAHAM called a standing order
under the East India Company's monopoly, that no
man-if war was ever to go into the China seas ;
and by the sad consequences which have arisen
from their presence there in later times. But he
-bowed that Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S objections on these
points were groundless. With respect to not sending
more specific instructions and greater power t the
Superintendent, to put down the opium trade, Mr.
MACAULAY was eminently successful, and clearly de-
monstrated that it was neither the duty, nor
was it possible for Great Britain to put an
end to the opium trade. To attempt it would
only drive it from Canton to the coasts, and convert
smugglers into buccaneers, The Right Hon. Gentle-
man concluded his speech by an affecting appeal to the
right of Englishmen to the protection of their country
wherever they might be, by an emphatic description of
the cruelty of the Chinese, and by assuring the House
that the people would never be backward in making any
sacrifice to ensure respect to the name of England in
every quarter of the world. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man's speech, of which we have here presented a very
imperfect analysis, was most effective, anti scattered the
fallacies and the twaddle of the heavy ex-First Lord of
the Admiralty to the wind, as a smart English frigate
would demolish a heavy Spanish ship, blow her up, and
scatter her in disjointed fragments on the waves.
Sir WM. FOLLETT followed Mr. MacauLav, and
laboured by long and many quotations from the
despatches to prove that the Ministers had not supplied
the Superintendent with sufficient power, nor defined
his duties with sufficient precision. Sir WM. FOLLETT
concluded a much more able speech than that of Sir
JAMES GRAHAM by deprecating war of any kind, and
above all, a war with an unwarlike people, from whose
defeat we could only gain disgrace.
Sir GEORGE STAUNTON effectively closed the debate
or the evening, for Mr. HERBERT'S speech goes for
nothing, by making a speech in favour of Ministers,
which was imperfectly heard. Sir GEORGE fully confirmed,
however, an observation which we made in The Sun
a few days ago. He said that our empire over India
rested on opinion ; and that if we suffered commercial
degradation in China, and took no steps to maintain
our trade, we should lose our Indian empire. Such a
sentiment, and coming from so high an authority, will
have its weight with the nation, and induce it to be
very cautious how it checks an expedition, the failure
of which
•l might destroy our power in Asia. The
debatei was git
adjourned.'

The House was generally well filled through the
evening, and at the close was crowded. The question
excites great interest in the House as well as in the

country.
We think the Ministers had completely the advan-
tage in the debate. Their opponents made no appeal
to the immorality of the trade in opium. As Mr.
MACAULAY said, the same measures to demand repara-
tion would be carried forward though the men were
changed. The To:ies, therefore, who are as ready for
the war as their opponents, will not be supported by
Mr. Sr URGE'S party. With reference to this factious
proceeding of the Tory landlords, we must remark that
it is very easy to be wise alter the events, but not so
easy to foresee and provide for them. It is easy enough
also, as Mr. MACAULAY explained, in looking back for five
years over a series of events, to say, had this been done
or that omitted, the result wou:d have been different ;
it is easy enough to find fault, but it is not so easy to
prove how the thing could be better done, and how any
Government in England could avoid the contest wh'eli
the Chinese authorities, from a dread and hatred of the
red-haired barbarians, have begun. Neither Sir JAMES
M GRAHAM nor Sir WILLIAFoLLETT explained how
power could be conveyed from England to the Super-
intendent at Canton, nor what were the in.tructions
he ought to have received. Under the India monopoly
a power was created which the abolition of that mono-
poly destroyed designedly, and to revive the license
system would be to restore it. A fleet of ships could
not bring back that power, and would he sure to involve
us in war. Till these gentlemen explain by what
means power can be conveyed to the Superintendent,
and till they describe what instructions are requisite,
ore shall treat their complaints as were factious deela-
mltion, intended merely to damage their opponents,
not to serve their country. We bag leave to recommend
Mr. MACAULAY'S stirring speech to a careful perusal.

We have received a file of the Ceylon Herald to
the latter end of December, in looking over which
we find numerous complaints of the administration
of justice in the District Courts of that colony. In
the Supreme Court the business appears to be con-
ducted very creditably ; but the acting Justices of
the District Courts are represented as vouna men
with little experience, and no knowledge 0f law,
and whose decisions, when they take it into their
heads to decide at all, which seems to be very sel-
dom, are invariably guided by the recommendation
of the Proctors of the Courts.
calls for serious inquil y. Justice at least justice
This complaint
impartially, promptly, and efficiently administered,
is the birthright of every British subject.

as the rest of his
---.....---
Sir JAMES GRAHAM last night reminded the house
of
Commons, by referring to the Chit:a Bill brought
in by Lord PALMERSTON in 1838, that the Ministers
had not been so inattentive to our relations with China
jects within his
his resolution affirms. That Bill was intended to give
speech was directed to prove, and as
more power to the Superintendent, namely, the power
of deciding in civil causes between her Majesty's sub.
of that all was Mr. 'HAWES in the name of Sir
jurisdiction. The principal opponent
Grotto': STALINToN, on the ground that it was per
reedy useless, and even mischievous to establish anv power
in China without the consent of the Chinese Govern-
ment. It was then expressly stated that the Americans
carried on their trade without any such power, either
civil or criminal. 'Pallowin; Sir GrORGE STAUNTON,
~tid rPlyilii: on his autliorit;., Sir .1.4:,1Y.F.• Ga.ktia:u, and
for a miiiiikAr ry.a:44)n, alsu opposrd the, Bill.
(;liAtiAM tll,Ol acid. a,: a re::-.11 f'or ."1)110'i"if Ole 11:11,
that he decidedly considered that the clauses of the Act
of 1833, to which he Was a art yon the Superinten-
, and which enabled
the Government to confer powper
dent,' were unnecessary, and it would be highly inexpe-
dient to extend their operation." Then the Right Hon.
Baronet disclaimed giving more power to the Superinten-
dent, and stopped Lord PAL3ILRSTON from doing so.
:Now he finds fault with the Noble Lord for not hiving
done what Sir JAMES in 1838 would not allow him to
do. Sir JAMES, in support of his view, " asked the
Noble Lord," according to Hansard, " whether he did
not think it prudent to wait for further accounts from
China before he called on the House, at that late
entreaties
the
Bill. and
This ;
on July 28, 183$, subsequent to which time the such
was
period of the Session, to pass a measure which
might interfere with commercial relations which were
every day becoming more important, and which had
been the source of great prosperity." Lord PALMER-
BTON,
opposition,in gave consequenceiv4y,an
do f
withdrew su
such
h