The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-09 00:00:00

ME SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1840.

only as to their dates.—( Hear.) When an attempt was
mode to interfere with an execution, which was to be car-
ried into effect according to the laws of the empire, the
Noble Lord promptly sent out his declaration that such
interference was wholly unjustifiable.—( Hear, hear.)
When he considered that five months must elapse
before the despatch of the Superintendent applying
for advice could reach this country, and that the
answer could not reach him before the lapse of five
months, it seemed to him to be impossible that the Super-
intendent could be left dependent upon instructions from
the Government at home in every emergency.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Buller) thought that the Superinten-
dent ought to have greater powers—that Criminal Courts
ought to be established, but he did not think that any
part of the present disturbances arose out of the want of
those Courts.—( Hear, hear, hear.) lie asked gentlemen
opposite, what power would they have given the Super-
intendent ?—( Hear.) They spoke of ample and definite
powers.—( Hear.) But imprisonment and forfeiture would
have been useless. Otte effective power might have been
given, that was—deportation.—( Hear, hear.) But the
Noble Lord was not to blame for the withholding of that
power. Ile ( Mr. Buller) knew who was to blame. It
was a specimen of the foresight of the Right Honourable
Baronet opposite.—( Cheers.) In 1838, the Noble Lord
then at the head of the Admiralty, brought in a 13ill for the
establishment of Criminal Courts in the waters of China,
and for giving this power of deportation. The Right Hon.
Baronet " objected to the Bill being brought in at so late
a period of the Session, but did not wish to throw any ob-
stacle in the way of the Government—he only wished for
deliberation and thee."—( Cheers and laughter.) " He"
( Sir J. Graham) " did not see how Courts could be esta-
blished and write enforced, but he greatly objected to the
deportation of British subjects. "—( hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Baronet did not wish to obstruct or embarrass the Go-
vernment—not he l—( Laughter.) No. If they would
bring in a Bill in the next Session—( A laugh)—even
though they had nut the consent of the Emperor of China
--(A laugh)—he might not oppose it.—( Hear and laugh-
ter.) With his ( Sir J. Graham's) statesmanlike views,
and foresight, and prudence, he would not oppose the Bill
in the next session, when if it passed at all, it would pass
at the very time when the property of British subjects in
China was confiscated, and all the evils sought to be
avoided by the Bill had actually occurred I—(Cheers.)
The Right Hon. Baronet might find a good deal to dis-
pute in the course of all these words, he might say that
they did not amount to a statement that he would oppose
the grant of further power ; but the Right Hon. Baronet
was so far a statesman, that he would never let what he had
said be misunderstood, and accordingly he found him wind-
ing up the debate in the following terms :—" I must re-
peat, that so far from being favourable to the extension of
the power of the Court, I think its powers ought to be
withdrawn."—(Great cheering.) Such were the powers
the Right Hon. Baronet would have given to the Super-
intendent in the hour of need—the withdrawal of all
power.—( Cheers.) There was but one other point to
which he wished to advert, and that was the refusal to
follow the sage advice of the Duke of Wellington upon
the subject of the stout frigate.—( Hear, hear.) It was
with great pain that he ever spoke disrespectfully of the
Duke of Wellington, or said that the advice attributed t 3
him was the most foolish and mischievous that ever could
be given.—( Hear.) He was happy, however, to say that
in the present ease he need not be so wanting to the
Noble Duke, for what was the advice he had given ? He
said—" I would recommend that, till the trade has taken
its regular peaceable course, particularly considering what
has passed recently, there should always be within the
Consul's reach a stout frigate and a smaller vessel of war."
Now, it seemed to him that that advice of the Duke of
Wellington was sound ; that when there had been a dis-
turbance the Consul-General should have the power to
put a stop to it. if there wes one course of conduct more
mischievous than another, it was the manner in which the
Gentlemen opposite had endeavoured to twist and turn
that advice to their own purposes. Nothing could be so
impolitic on the part of this country as always having ves-
sels in the Canton River—nothing was more calculated to
sweep away the trade of this country with China than the
exhibition of an armed force in their waters.—(Cheers.)
There never had yet been a force in the waters of China
without exciting great jealousy, and as a proof
of that he need only remind the House of
what bad taken place in consequence of the presence
of two men-of-war at the time of the unhappy
affair of Lord Napier. He had now endeavoured to ao-
swer such of the arguments of Gentlemen opposite as
seemed to bear upon the question at issue; and he trusted,
as the question could have nothing but a party object in
view, the House would not be led away by any considera-
tion not involved in the motion before them. He trusted
that they •would consider they were treating with a mere
party question, and would dispose of it as an unworthy
attack upon the Government. (The Hon. Gentleman sat
(low* amid much cheering.)
Mr. W. E. GL DSTONE', then rose to address the
House. The speech of the Hon. Member who had just
sat down had been marked with the ability and
ingenuity that usually distinguished all that he 1;
said ; but he could not help remarking that
at the close of that speech, that although he declined sup-
porting the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet, yet, upon
two points of vital importance, he agreed with the senti-
ments expressed by him, first, that Captain Elliot should
have been invested with larger powers than be possessed ;
and, secondly, that a Court for the control of British sub-
jects ought to have been established ; and the Hon. Mem-
ber had added more point to this observation, by remark-
ing that the jealousy of the Chinese was a well-founded
jealousy—that it had been increased by the change that had
taken place in 1833, by the increase of trade in opium, by
its extension along the coast, and by the conduct of Lord
Napier. The lion. Gentleman had thought it strange
that the Duke of Wellington, during his tenure of office,
which the Hon. Gentleman had stated at three months,
should have addressed only one despatch on the subject of
China, and he said that the Duke of Wellington in that
despatch did not blame Lord Napier ; now he (Mr. Glad-
stone) had found in that despatch a marked allusion to
Lard Napier. The Duke in that despatch says, "It is not
by force and violence that his Majesty intends to establish
a commercial intercouse between his subjects and China,
but by the other conciliatory measures so strongly incul-
cated in all the instructions which you have received."—
( Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen cheered, but they must please
to recollect that no person in the debate, or elsewhere, had
objected to those instructions.—( Hear, hear.) Now, it
it was the most natural thing in the world, that while the
Duke of Wellington was considering the subject, he should
content himself with writing a despatch containing an evi-
dent rebuke. He thought that those who were so charit-
able to the Noble Lord, when he allowed months and
years to elapse without answers to particular subjects,
might learn a most useful lesson from what had been done
by the Duke of Wellington.—( Hear, hear.) He had laid
down a scheme, which, if the Noble Lord had had
the wisdom and manliness to adopt, he would have
prevented all that had taken place. It had been truly said
that the charges they had made against the Government
were charges of ornission.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had had no new course to carve out, it was indicated
in the Act of 1833. That Act gave hint full power to
preserve order in China, by the same or more stringent
means than was employed by the supercargoes. He had
refused to adopt the China Trade Act, he refused to take
notice of the advice of the Duke of Wellington, that the
Superintendent ought to have greater powers.—( Hear,
hear.) But what had the Noble Lord done? Why he
had told Captain Elliot that he must insist upon having a
diplomatic character, which he knew perfectly well had
always been denied by the Chinese. The Chinese Go-
vernment, it was well known, had always refused to
acknowledge this country as a nation, but had consented
to trade with us as a body of tradesmen. The Noble
Lerd had told Captain Elliot to insist upon having a
diplomatic character, but he had refused to give him the
power to force British subjects. The next omission of the
Noble Lord was the omission to erect a Court. The
Hon. Gentleman had talked about the power of absolute
deportation ; if he did not think that right, was the
Right Hon. Baronet to blame ?—( Hear. ) And if
be did think it right, why did he not give the power of
deportation, empowered as he was by the clauses in the
Act ?—( Hear.) The grand omission of the Noble Lord
was the omission that was made respecting the frightful
causes of the opium trade under its present circumstances,
because there was a great difference between it as carried
on before and after 1836. The quantity of opium before
that time was very much less, the trade not having then
taken that spring which it did after 1833, there being then
a power in the East India Company to stop it if they
thought proper. Now, what were the facts connected
with the opium trade as it stood after 1a36 ? The
universal connivance of the Chinese authorities up to
that time had always been admitted. Now, what
had Mr. King, an American merchant, and the author of
of a pamphlet, entitled " Opium Prices," stated with
respect to that? Why, he said that that connivance was
only a " subaltern connivance." His opinion, therefore,
was, that the connivance was only the connivance of the
inferior officers of the Chinese Government. Now, look-
ing at the case from the Inc nt h `h r,p
itne msbeep , rt,elmBb3e6r,
apprehen-
sion down-
wards, what were the facts ? y
the Emperor issued an edict, commanding the
of all natives concerned in the opium traffic. This
edict, which was not issued hastily, but after full con-
sideration, was followed by another aimed at the foreigners.
Now, what he wished to know wag, why the Noble
Lord had not interfered when he heardr o. fsue those n edicts ?
ro is edict,
On the 234 of November, the Empe
ordering certain foreigners to leave the country, whom he
had heard were smugglers of opium. The Noble Lord
had been informed of that, but Captain Elliot appeared to
have put himself in opposition to the Chinese, and stated
that he would resist the expulsion of the smuggling mer-
chants, if the Government should endeavour to enforce
their edict ; and that was the way in which the British
Government had stood aloof and observed neutrality.—
( Hear, bear.) On the 12th of April, 1537, Captain Elliot
arrived at Canton, and at that time he was
informed that the removal of the receiving-ships
was insisted upon. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down, had quoted a passage from the
narrative of Mr. Lindsay, a gentleman who was undoubt-
edly an interested party, and who was as greatly interested
in the opium trade as anybody, alleging that the Viceroy
was concerned in the native boats. Much weight could
not be given to such an assertion. The next act of the
Government of Canton was, that on the 14th of July, the
Emperor not being satisfied with the result of his messages
to the Foreign Minister, ordered the receiving ships to be
sent away by an Imperial Edict, and the English were dis-
tinctly informed that the legal trade would only be continued
upon the offending parties, be they who they might, being
removed from China. At that time Captain Elliot rc..
ferred the matter to the Noble Lord, with the most earnest
entreaties that the Noble Lord would take up the subject.
He suggested one particular means of dealing with it.
The Noble Lord did not approve of that ; but because the
Noble Lord did not choose to send a Commissioner to ne-
gotiate with the Court of Pekin, wag that a justification to
the Noble Lord for allowing bloodshed, robbery, and what
Captain Elliot termed a system of piracy, to continue from
month to month, and, for aught that the Noble Lord ap-
peared to have cared, from year to year, and to make no
communication to Parliament on the subject ? It was
after that time that the Noble Lord laid that garbled
statement on the table upon which he founded his applica-

tion for what bad been termed the China Courts Bill.-
( Hear, hear.) At length Captain Elliot himself was in-
formed of the commands of the Emperor. The Noble
Lord at that time had every demonstration that man could
have of the sincerity and earnestness of the Chinese Go-
vernment, and the Noble Lord had no grounds for sup-
posing that Parliament would be indifferent or reluctant to
interfere on the subject. The Noble Lord receiving those
despatches in May, 1838, took no step whatever with regard
to them—the excuse to be advanced was, that because he
declined to act at a time when acting might have been of
use and have prevented the rupture that took place, that
therefore he is to be excused for not attempting to inter-
fere till a later period --(Hear, hear.) He ( Mr. Glad-
stone) thought the Chinese Government had been has slily
used in this debate, particularly by the Right Hon. Mem-
ber for Edinburgh, but he would beg to observe that the
Chinese Government did not proceed to extremities entil
after those edicts had been issued. They trusted to Cap-
tain Elliot's declaration, not very ingenuous, that he would
refer the matter to the British Government. He said he
had no official cognizance of any trade but the legal trade,
and that over any other trade he had no authority.__ (Hear,
hear.) Why the opium trade was a notorious fact—there
was not a man in Canton that was not aware of all the
circumstances connected with it, and when Captain Elliot
stated that the Noble Lord did not even take the trouble
to say, do not profess ignorance of that which you arc
well aware of.
Mr. ELLIOT—At what page is the correspondence
to which the Hon. Member is now referring?
Mr. G LADSTONE said at page 233 there was a
letter of Captain Elliot's to Lord Palmerston, in which
he stated "it is requisite your Lordship should know
that at my first arrival in Canton, in the month of April
last, I have frequently been urged by the official mer-
chants (and as they have always declared by the special
command of the Governor) to dismiss the opium ships
from the usual anchorages outside the ports. I have in-
variably replied on these occasions that my Commission
charged me with the superintendence of the trade of
Canton—that my Government had no formal knowledge
of the existence of any other ;" and in page 240, Captain
Elliot wrote to the Governor of Canton in these
terms :—" He has already signified to your Ex-
cellency, with truth and plainness, that his Com-
mission extends only to the regular trade with this
empire, and, further, that the existence of any other than
this trade has never yet been submitted to the knowledge
of his own gracious Sovereign."—( Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") He hoped the Hon. Gentleman was satisfied
with that.—( Hear, hear.) Be it recollected, in vindica-
tion of the Chinese Government, in making these solemn
and repeated applications to Captain Elliot, that Captain
Elliot told them he had no power to control the smuggling
trade of Canton, and when Capt. Elliot stated that he
had no power to control the smuggling trade, was it to be
expected after that the Chinese Government would confine
themselves to communications with Capt. Elliot ? When
Capt. Elliot, who professed to be the agent of this nation,
and whom the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had called
the representative of her Majesty, declared that he was
unable to keep her Majesty's subjects in obedience to the laws
of China, was it to be supposed after that the Chinese
Government would still waste their time in fruitless de-
clamation, and not have recourse to other measures more
conducive to the purposes they had in view ?—( Hear,
hear.) On the 20th November, 1837, there was another
edict issued against the receiving ships, and in that edict
it was threatened that the trade would be stopped; on the
22d of December a similar edict was issued, and another
was issued in January, 183 i. He was sorry to fatigue the
House by entering into those detaiis, but it was only just
to the Chinese Government to show with what exemplary
patience they had striven by repeated efforts to break the
slumbers of the Noble Lord, and to rouse him into exer-
tion.—( Cheers.) It had been said that lethargy was not
a quality for which the Noble Lord was distinguished, and
because the Noble Lord had been a meddler in one part of
the world, that was to be an excuse for his doing nothing
in another part of the world. But the Noble Lord, in the
very few things he did, had created as much mischief as
in these things which he did not.—(Cheers. ) The
Noble Lord continually instructed Captain Elliot in his
representative character, to substitute for the word " Pin"
some less objectionable phrase, that was to say, the Noble
Lord continually urged Captain Elliot to go on, and
endeavour to obtain a diplomatic and national recognition
of his character. The Chinese Government in 1838,
having found that their representations to the representa-
tive of her Majesty were in vain, began to be of opinion
that some more awful warning was necessary ; and
on the Ist of April, 1838, a Chinese was exe-
cuted within the square of the factory, with an
ignominious inscription above him, to the effect that he
had been executed on account of his traitorous conduct
with respect to the opium trade, and the exportation of
Sycee silver. That was intended for the instruction of
foreigners; but the Noble Lord was no more rroved by
learning the severities which the Chinese were exercising
on their own subjects than ho was by the remonstrances
they had addressed to his representative. There bad been
seizures of opium and a bloody collision—all that was '
communicated to the Noble Lord. The seizure of opium
was frequent, and there was the arrest of Coolies.
Then Captain Elliot, finding the pressure upon
him increased, stopped the trade in the river, and
declared it a lawless traffic, and thus by his influence,
power, or authority, so far met the demands of the Chinese
Government ; but that was not enough. The Chinese
Government insisted on the remeval of the receiving ships.
He regretted to say that Captain Elliot to the last had
set his face against the removal of those ships, and had
been supported by the Noble Lord in that course of con-
duct.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Edinburgh, came forward with feelings of
philanthropy and humanity, and said that lie regretted and
deprecated the opium trade, but that Right Hon. Gentle-
wan had sent his agent to support the opium trade, for that
agent supported the British merchants, and set his face
against the acts of the Chinese Government in attempting
to remove those receiving ships.—( Cheers.) The Chinese
Government went through a long series of expedients from
the month of September, 1836, to the month of January,
1839, to endeavour to impress upon the Noble Lord
and his agents the policy of their measures. For
two years and a half they had persevered in
one long, unvarying course, and both Imperial and Pro-
vincial Governments had used every lawful endeavour to
suppress the opium trade, and had adopted every amicable
means of making that intention known to the agents of the
British Government.—( Hear, hear.) Their communica-
tions were treated with contempt and neglect, both by the
Noble Lord and the British authorities in China. At
length the last step was taken by the Chinese, of actually
strangling a man in the square.—( Hear, hear.) It
was said that that was an insult to the feelings of the
promoters of the contraband traffic, who had been the
cause of the death of the wretched man, and who,
it was hoped by the Chinese Government, would,
by such a dreadful exhibition, have learned the responsibi-
lity under which they acted. Mark the condt.ct of Cap-
tain Elliot, as approved of by the Noble Lord. Captain
Elliot, knowing that the arrival of the Commissioner was
to be expected, said he should consider himself bound not
only to the protection of British persons, but likewise of
British property ; the meaning of that being, he would
instruct the whole force of the English in Canton to re-
sist any attempt that might be made by the Chinese to
confiscate the opium. The confiscation only took place
after a regular gradation of measures on the part of the
Chinese. But then they were told that the Chinese
ought not to have seized the persons, and the Right Hon.
Member for Edinburgh stated they had seized persons
without proof of their guilt. How was it possible for
them to have proof except the notoriety of their being
engaged in the trade, and how else were they to get hold
of the opium—how were they to stop the trade? Had they
not a moral right to stop the trade ?—( Hear.) Was it
not sheer hypocrisy to be eloquent in words against the
opium trade, and yet to pour out all the stores of elo-
quence and sarcasm against every measure adopted by the
Chinese Government, and to turn a deaf ear to every en-
treaty of the Chinese Government to suppress the trade ?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite would better have discharged
their duty, and would have discharged it with more
satisfaction to their constituents if, with less loud protesta-
tions on the subject of the opium trade, they had shoe. n
an honest desire to encourage its suppression, instead of
discouraging those laudable efforts which the Chinese
made to break np the depot by which the trade was
carried on, and altogether to repel it from their shores.—
(Cheers.) Another indignant demonstration of the Right
Hon. Gentleman was that the Chinese had confounded
the innocent with the guilty ; and when he (Mr. Glad-
stance) first learned that the Chinese had surrounded the
British in Canton, and placed them in duresse,
he confessed that he thought it was a cruel
and monstrous act on the part of the Chinese, be-
lieving, as he did, that it was impossible the British
community could, to a man, have been engaged in that
traffic. But what was the fact? There were 200 per-
sons confined. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman inquired
how many innocent there were out of that number ?
( Hear, hear.) Did the Right Hon. Gentleman suppose
there were five innocent among the 200? If he did not,
what became of his eloquent denunciations? But if the com-
munity in general wereinvolved in that trade—if the implica-
tion in it was the rule and not the exception, then he
contended the Chinese were right in acting against
the community in general.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. Gentleman read an extract from a pamphlet by
a Mr. King, in order to show that all the British in Can-
ton were either directly or indirectly connected with the
opium trade ; yet with these facts before him the Right
H m. Member for Edinburgh complained in most eloquent
language, that the innocent had been confounded and
punished along with the guilty. Where, he would ask,
were the innocent to be found? The Chinese Govern-
ment, before having recourse to violent measures, had
exhausted all other means within their power, of showing
their firm determination of putting down the opium trade
by confiscations, after edicts of all kinds had been tried—
by every means within their power they had endeavoured
to show their sincerity. It was the duty of the Noble
Lord to have seconded these laudable endeavours. The
Noble Lord said, or might say, that it was impossible to
put a stop to the opium trade; but it was quite possible to
have shown a hearty desire to concur with the Chinese
Government—it was quite possible to have senti away the
receiving ships—true, the Right llodno.no i\ etrahebertratioier
Edinburgh said, had that been
itwould ask,
wouldnow h?avellebescaoimd eitpiwraatsieaiml.
poNsVsihblaet' tiole that
trade trade Did he know from what ports the opium was ex-
ported Gover-
nment from Bengal and Bombay?
poppy,
y , the encouragedeffeet themust
have
ported ? Did he know that nearly tlie
iwiandolei of it was
culti-
vations
ot of izeydthing there?els
cripple the trade, and eventually altogother
( Hear, hear.) oble Lord
else than i Itande
knew that the opium trade was denounced by the Chinese
o
Government—that it was mischievous ia all its results.
btoeelniate siureria_ftrij's.sed it.—
It wise his baunden duty, therefore, to have come down
to the House, and ask for the assistance of the Legislature
to put an end to it. It was then said that the Sovereign
had been insulted in the person of her representative ; her
how was it shown that he was so ? Was he the repre-
sentative of the Sovereign because he said h
had no power to pot an end to the
opium trade, nor interfere with or control or
punish British offenders? Was it shown by his saying

he was so, or by his being acknowledged as such by the
Chinese? That book proved that the Chinese had never
recognized Captain Elliot in any such character; they
recognised him as a person sent there to control and go-
vern the British trade, and in no other character. In
palliation of the conduct of Captain Elliot, but not in
palliation of that of the Government, he would say that
whenever Captain Elliot showed a disposition to check
the smuggling trade, then, and not till then, did the Noble
Lord complain of him; when he asked for fresh instruc-
tions and fuller powers, he was met by a contemptuous
neglect of all his demands. The Noble Lord refused to
give him fresh instructions, or to extend his powers.
Captain Elliot in the spring of last year, identified him-
self with the opium trade. It was distinctly declared by
him ; on the 13th March, he stated that he had then made
up his mind to direct the British at Canton to resist any
attack upon themselves on their property. The Noble
Lord adopted that act of Captain Elliot's along with all
the rest. Were they then to be told that the motion of
the Right Hon. Baronet had no bearing upon the question
of war ? Could any one doubt that the vote of that night— i
if the House voted that night—that the war was mainly at- 1
tributable to the culpable negligence of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, would have a direct bearing upon the ques-
tion, and that it would be their duty, in the first place, to
declare that there were great evils connected with the trade
in opium ; and that, in the second place, they would be
shifting the responsibility of the war upon the shoulders of
the Government; and, while so doing, they would be im-
posing upon themselves the moral responsibility of resorting
to negotiation, and to endeavour to make reparation for the
past injuries inflicted on the Chinese, before we at all con-
templated making reprisals ? The Right Hon. Gentleman
complained that no one upon that side of the House had
alluded to the war; he (Mr. G.) was very much deceived
indeed if he had not heard the Right Hon. Baronet de-
nounce the war as one in which success would bring no
honour, and defeat entail everlasting disgrace—(Cheers)
—and he doubted very much whether, even upon the most
purely technical principles, they had a right even to make
exceptions to the seizure of opium by the Chinese. Much
had been said respecting the motion being brought forward
for party purposes—he confessed that he cared little for
such a charge, it was one sure to command a
cheer ; but, coming from either party, it meant
nothing, and whether there were party purposes
in this case or not there were merits—the principles of
justice were deeply involved, and the Government would
hereafter be called upon to show cause, and good cause,
why such a war had been entered on. It was probable, or
perhaps nearly certain, that we cannot obtain those terms
which, with equity, we might demand without a dis-
play of force.—(Loud cheers.) But what were we
about to do? We were going to exact reparation for
insults and compensation for the seizure of pro-
perty, and that without ever having asked the Chinese for
any explanation whatever. The British community in
Canton having declared that they were determined to carry
on the trade in opium, and Captain Elliot, having declared
that he had no power to put an end to it, and having re-
fused to carry on the legitimate trade at the usual place,
namely, Wharnpoa, where the Chinese were anxious that
it should be carried on, Captain Elliot said, " No, we'll
go to Lintin "—the very focus of the smuggling trade,
which naturally excited the suspicion of the Chinese
that that trade was to be carried on as before. The Chi-
nese had no other means of putting a stop to that trade
which they so much disliked. They had no armament,
and therefore were possessed of no other means of expel-
ling the British than by the refusal of supplies and poison-
ing the wells.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
To do the Chinese justice all that they had done was to
allege that they had poisoned the wells. They had given
full notice of their intention, and their will to drive them
from that port.—(Cheers.) They had a full rig ht, he
asserted, to drive them from that port when they were car-
Qing on an infamous and atrocious trade, which was
protected by the agent of the Home Government ; there-
fore he (Mr. Gladstone) did not see upon what
ground it could be urged that the Chinese had no right to
drive them from their shores. It was a war of the grossest
injustice—a war the most likely to crown this country with
disgrace.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Right Hon.
Member for Edinburgh had talked in most eloquent lan-
guage of the animated effect of the flag of England
floating over the walls of Canton. They were all aware
of the animated and soul-stirring effect which that flag
had had on the battle-field, and when seen waving over the
walls of a conquered torn, but that effect was caused by
the fact that that flag had always been associated with the
protection of the oppressed, and on behalf of law and
national rights, or with honourable commercial enterprises.
—(Cheers.) But now, under the auspices of the Noble
Lord, that flag was hoisted for the purpose of protecting
a contraband traffic, for the first time.—( Loud cheers.)
He was perfectly assured that the Government could
never persuade that House to abet them in so unjust and
cruel a course. Supposing they were entirely to set aside
the illegality of the opium trade, and the justice or pro.
priety of the war, still the charge against the Noble
Lord remained equally complete. Whether the opium
trade was right or wrong, the Noble Lord bad been equally
neglectful of his duty. The circumstances which had
been brought under his notice daring a period of several
years—which he had brought to his knowledge even up Ito
April, 1839—were all of them circumstances which called
upon him for effective interference ; whatever kind of inter-
ference it might have been, his (Mr. G.'s) own opinion
was, that that interference ought to have been for the
effectual suppression of the opium trade, and that he
trusted would be the opinion of the House, as shown by
the vote of that night, although undoubtedly the Chinese
might have been guilty of some wrong acts, but still they
had substantial justice on their side in this question. It
was the duty of the Noble Lord to have suppressed the
opium traffic, and if the Noble Lord had ever read these
papers--( Hear, hear)—it might be a matter of reasonable
doubt whether he had ever done so or not—(Loud
cheers)—it was more charitable to the Noble Lord to
suppose that he had not read them, considering the con-
duct which he had pursued, and until he heard it from the
Noble Li ird himself he (Mr. G.) would never suppose they
had ever been perused by him. The Noble Lord had
done all in his power to keep the House in the dark,'and
when he had produced the papers, he gave them in the
form of one great chaos, which rendered it almost impos-
sible for any one to understand them. It was more
charitable to the Noble Lord to suppose he had not read
them, than to suppose that having read them, he had
been so negligent of the first principles of his duties.
He, and those who acted with him, asserted that the
war was chargeable upon the negligence and indolence of
theroble Lord. It was caused first by the continuance o
the smuggling trade in opium ; again by the murder on the
17th of July, which Captain Elliot had not the power
either to prevent or to punish, and it was further caused
by the passage of the Thomas Ceutts to Canton, which
the Gallant Captain could have prevented if the Noble
Lord had furnished him with the necessary powers.
The Noble Lord was chargeable with that war ; on the
Government rested the undivided responsibility, although,
of course, if the vote of that night negatived the motion of
the Right Hon. Baronet, then, of course, the House would
become participators in the wrong.
Mr. WARD, who was very inaudible throughout his
speech, said the Hon. Member who had last addressed the
House, as he always did with great sincerity of feeiing and
much power, had the merit of being the first in the course
of the debate who had given any clear indication of the
policy of the party to which he belonged. He had told
them that he did not wish to avoid the opium question—he
had told them that he bad very few scruples. Ile proved
the justice of his own definition, by telling the House that
from first to last, in all the proceedings that had taken
place, however much they might be at variance with the
intercourse of civilized nations, he conceived the Chinese
to be entirely in the right. ( Hear, hear, hear.)
He had justified tho blockade of the English factory-
-he had justified the seizure of the innocent and the
guilty together—he had justified the poisoning of the wells
--(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches)—along the
whole line of the coast of China, in order to deprive of
fresh water the English women and children—(" Oh, oh,"
from the Opposition benches)—who it was admitted had
nothing to do with the importation of opium, and who had
been expelled by the Imperial Commissioner, at three
hours' notice, from Macao.—( Hear, hear.) He blamed
Capt. Elliot for not having given up all the English ves-
sels, amounting to fifty, not one-third of whom had ever
been implicated in the opium trade, when they
were threatened by the Imperial Commissioner with fleets
of fire ships, which he had adopted as a sort of coast
guard. The Hon. Member went further, and blamed
Captain Elliot because, in a drunken brawl in which seve-
ral English and American sailors were engaged, and in
which a native was killed, and in which it was impossible to
ascertain even the nation of the party. He blamed Capt.
Elliot because he had not given up an innocent man to the
Chinese authorities.—( Cries of ",No, no.")
Mr. GLADSTONE—Not a word of the kind. ,
Mr. WARD would appeal to the Hon. Members near
him, whether he did not state that that was one of the
causes of the outbreak, and one of the causes
which swelled the list of their enormities against the
Chinese.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member had told them what
would be the policy of his party if the present motion suc-
ceeded, and it appeared to him (Mr. Ward) mostnd n
ranti--
English pulley, namely, that they would British
received, ot d
emanation Ipiaad
ration for the injuries and insults the B
received, but that they would make repairaadtioanlanfostrattehd,e
outrages that had been committed. He i
that negotiations should precede any acts of hostility,
and he trusted such would be ti ie case in the present
instance. The Hon. Member admitted, however, that
he thought it was impossible to carry on their trade in
China without an armament.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Al.
though he laid the whole blame of the present diffi-
culties upon the Government, be had omitted to
point out one single act which they could have done to
avoid hostilities. They had been told that the Duke of
Wellington had traced out a course of policy which would
have been successful, if the Noble Lord had the courage
to carry it out. Now, he (Mr. Ward) had read the
memorandum carefully, and he sought in vain for that
course of policy to which the Hon. Member referred. In
addition to his recommendation, that there should be two
vessels of war stationed in the river, he found the Duke of
Wellington was wrong upon two cardinal points. The
Noble Duke attributed the failure of Lord Napier's mission
to hishaving taken up his residence in Canton, but Captain
Elliot had succeeded in proving that it was not in conse-
quence of any objection to his residence in Canton, but to
his having made his demand without the observance of
these forms and ceremonies which were so necessary in
any intercourse with the Chinese authorities. Now, in
consequence of the wise and discreet course of policy that
' had been pursued by Captain Elliot for the last two years,
he had succeeded in carrying all those points which the
Duke of Wellington had considered unattainable. One
was the allowing the English Superintendent to re-
side at Canton ; another was, the obtaining an
imperial eiliet, recognising him in his special character as
distinct from that of the East Indian supercargoes—he
had thus obtained a consular power, which had never been
acceded by the Chinese before.—( Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved the papers relative to the present subject had been
as carefully examined, and by as many Hon. Members as
had investigated any subject ever brought before that
House, and he should, therefore, bring his observations
upon there into the narrowest possible compass. He was

themore anxious, however, to make these observations,
because his opinions differed from those of many
of his constituents. In the year 1833 Lord Glecelg
stated what were the views of the Government
with regard to the opium trade. He stated that the sys-
tern under which the trade was carried on was regular and
complete, and although it was contrary to the laws of
China, it was still protected by the authorities of that
country. In these opinions, expressed by a member of
the Cabinet at that time, the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth entirely concurred. He admitted,
however, that the evils that had grown out of the opium
trade were not then anticipated. The Right Hon. Baro-
net who opened the debate, and all those who had succeeded

him, had dwelt much on the silence of the Government,
and the want of instructions, and had attributed to that all
the difficulties that had arisen; but not one of these Hon.
Members had pointed out where there had been any defi-
ciency of instructions to the Superintendent at Canton.
The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue that up to the year
1837, there was no interception of the friendly intercourse
between Captain Elliot and the Chinese, and no inti-
mation of the difficulties which had since occurred. That
although the Hon. Member for Newark had spoken of the
justice of the Chinese law, there was no subterfuge to
which they did not resort to evade inflictin; the law of
homicide. That Captain Ellliut, though he thought he
had put down the river trade, which he had attempted on
his own responsibility, bat merely by the influence of
moral rather than legal power, appeared to believe it
was impossible to extinguish altogether a trade in which
both nations were so much interested, and still hoped that
it would be legalized ; and with reference to the despatch
of the Bth May, 1838, which had been so much commented
on, no other course could have been taken by the Govern-
ment, but that which it intimated they had adopted,
that they could not sanction the illicit traffic in opium,
and that its responsibility must be wholly borne by
the parties who engaged in it. We had never been
called upon to aid other Governments in putting down
smuggling—the Spanish Government depended upon
their own guards costes, and yet it was notorious
that nine-tenths of the English trade with Spain was
carried on by the illicit introduction of goods through
Gibraltar. The Spanish Government did not call upon
us to interfere, and why should the Chinese? Smugglers
ran their own risks, and knew well that they had no right
to call upon their Consuls to protect them. But they had
been told that something must be done with regard to the
opium trade, but Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not tell
them what that something was to be. If the war was, as
stated by the Hon Member for Woodstock, an unholy and
an unjust war, ought they not to accept of every coo-
dition which it might please the Chinese to impose? '
There was nothing in the speech of the Right Honourable
Baronet to indicate the course of policy which he thought
ought to have been adopted, and they were called upon to
give their vote upon a motion which must produce a most
detrimental effect upon our commerce, which would lay
our trade prostrate at the feet of Commissioner Lin, and
transfer the whole of our traffic into the hands of the
Americans and the Dutch.—( Cheers.) He believed that
nothing except the concurrence of the Chinese and British
authorities could put down the opium trade, any other
measure would only have the effect of scattering it over a
large surface, of aggravating its evils, and of putting it
beyond the possibility of suppression ; but when he was
called upon to say that from first to last the Chinese had been
right, as had been asserted by the Hon. Member forNewaik,
and that no attack upon the persons and properties of British
subjects in China, however aggravated it might be, gave
this country any right to interfere, be must pause.—
( Cheers.) It was notorious that under the old system the
Commissioners and the Hongs all derived a large revenue
from conniving at the trade ; and although the Hon. Mem-
ber for Newark had asserted that which no other person
had yet had the boldness to assert—that no fault whatever
could be found with any of the proceedings of Commis-
sioner Lin—that he was perfectly justified in shutting up
the whole British population of Cantou—(Cheera)—
though that Hon. Gentleman approved of the expulsion
from Macao of his countrymen, under circumstances of
the greatest severity—(Cheers)—yet he could not
but think that these circumstances called for
interference with the Chinese Government. He would
now refer to another point, to which, however, the
Hon. Member had not referred. He alluded to the exac-
tion of a bond by the Commissioner from every British
ship entering the river of Canton, which would place every
vessel and crew, whether engaged in smuggling or not,
wholly at the mercy of the Chinese authorities. He
knew whether the Hon. Member would justify the conduct
of the Chinese in this instance also. He had represented
them to be a simple and an unsophisticated people ;
but he (Mr. Ward) believed them to be a people of great
shrewdness and cunning, and was riot disposed to put such
faith in them as the Hon. Member seemed disposed to do,
and he thought that all British subjects ought to be doubly
cautious how they trusted themselves in the power of the
Chinese. The bond, which was to be found at page 72,
provided that every ship should be liable to the penalty
of confiscation, and every person found on board be liable
to death, if a single pound of opium should be found on
board ; so that it was in the power of any officer of China,
of any Mandarin, who, through being refused a bribe,
might have an enmity to the captain of any vessel, to sub-
ject that vessel to confiscation, and her crew to death,
without any appeal from the Chinese tribunals. Upon
this bond the Imperial Commissioner had insisted
in the strongest possible manner, and he had had the good-
ness to explain that, if these ships during their voyage had
had any opium on board, which opium had at any period of
the voyage been transhipped into any other ship and after-
wards been landed on any part of the coasts of China—if, in
fact, by any subterfuge of the Chinese law, any connection
whatever could be proved between any quantity of opium
and any of the British ships, the penalties would be en-
forced. Captain Elliot had offered the right of search in-
stead of this bond, which was rejected. Captain Elliot
had proposed that he should give a certificate signed
by himself, that the ships had no opium on board, but
this also had been rejected by the Imperial Commissioner.
It was not on the question of the morality of the opium
trade, but it was on the disregard of the law of nations,
manifested by the Chinese, that he grounded his support
of the policy which had been pursued by her Majesty's
Government. He saw no chance beteceen the course they
now proposed to follow, and that of humiliating. and ire
feared unavailing concessions, so long as China re-
mained in its present state.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He would, however, impress on the Noble Lord his
earnest wish that every effort would be made to conciliate
the people cf China, and that the friendly relations which
had till of late prevailed between that country and this
would be borne in mind. We were the stronger power, and
we might inflict on China incalculable evil. We would have
to deal with a people whose habits and resources were an.
known to any, but who had in many instances given proofs
of their friendly feelings towards this country. He trusted
these effects would be remembered by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and that when an armament arrived on the coasts
of China, hostilities would, if possible, be averted by
every means that could be resorted to for the purpose of
settling our disputes on reasonable terms. At all events
he should give his vote against the motion of the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite, believing that her Majesty's Go-
vernment would pursue the wisest course, and that they
were as likely to succeed in that course, as if power were
transferred to their political rivals.—( Hear.)
Mr. G. PALMER would refer to two questions which
he had formerly put to her Majesty's Government. He had
put one of those questions to the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, and that question was, whether
there were not other despatches besides those which had
been lied before the House ? The Noble Lord said that
there were, but that they did not immediately relate to the
present question. The other question had been put by him
to the President of the Board of Trade, and which he wished
to repeat. It was whether any ships might be allowed
to clear from London for the ports of China. The an-
swer was that there would be no impediment to ships
clearing out of the ports of China, and that her Ma-
jesty's Government had no advice to offer, but that
which bad been already given by the Superintendent in
China. He had put the question in February last, and
at that moment her Majesty's Government were sending
military stores on board of men-of-war, and they lied
authorised commanders of ships to carry goods to Chita
for p'irposcs of trade. With regard to the character of
the Chinese people, he should say that it was greatly
misunderstood. They were not the barbarous people
they were supposed to be. Some of their laws were of
the most humane character. One of those laws con-
tained an order for offering assistance to shipwrecked
travellers, and another contained an order for affording
protection to people in distress.—( Hear, hear, hear. )
More, than one ship dismasted and disabled in a gale, had
been refitted and repaired by the Chinese Government,
and furnished by pilots, without the charge of a single
dollar. He (Mr. G. Palmer) was himself the commander
of one of those ships.—( Hear, hear.) It was too mush
the habit cf Englishmen to look down on foreigners, espe-
cially on those at a distance. The Hon. Member went on
to say that the shipowners who had signed the bond which
had been referred to, meant only to express that they were
not smugglers. He then quoted a speech of Mr. Jardine,
toting that foreigners could go to sleep with open doors
in China—( Hear, hear)—and that the dealings of the
people were usually honest, and their manner to strangers .
courteous, With this character of the Chinese, ought
they to be so contemptuously stigmatised as barbarians by
Gentlemen opposite ? Now, as to the " Pin " point—
the superscription " Pin," on the memorials to the Chinese '
Government, was only a matter of form ; as if be
(Mr. Palmer), writing to the Noble Lord (Palmerston),
subscribed himself " your humble servant," though of course
the Noble Lord would not imagine that he was so.
Now, as to the opium trade, the Noble Lord professed not
to interfere. Would that there had iudeed been no inter-
ference—would that there had not been a complete under-
standing between the Noble Lord and the Superintendent
as to secretly keeping up the trade without committing the
Government. As to what had been said respecting the
outer waters of China, he wished the House to bear in mind
that those waters were as much within the territory of
China as Sea Reach was within that of England. Lintiu
no further from Canton than Margate was from
The Chinese bad a right to seize the
London. The
couldy
ra an d
not goods
seize r
bwei t
property,h i n
artli m iunf
whichand when
smug-
could t h e
arm
under the
sm uegygelse r
so
byf
and
attempted tookFac
onetoattempted to release him—they had no other course open
ry
than to seize the Ministerial officer hinaslef. The Hon.
Member then went through a statement of all the transae.
tions out of which the present crisis had arisen, to show
that the conduct of the Superintendent (Mr. Elliot) was
in many respects injudicious and blameable, and that he
acted upon an understanding with the Government at
home that this trade was not to be effectually suppressed.
He coneideeed the course pursued by the Government was
a most unfair attack upon the Chinese, who bad only at-
tempted to put down a traffic that was atteinded with the
most injurious effects upon the health of the inhabitants of
that country. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by ex-
pressing his hearty concurrence with the motion.
On the motion of Mr. HOGG, the debate was ad-
journed till to-morrow.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock.