The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-10 00:00:00

these matters—with the part he had taken in the
discussion on the Chinese Courts, when he had said " in-
ternational law was against the principles of the nation, and
that the power of the Superintendent ought to be taken away."
He should like to know, after this encouragement given by
the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, what chance the Noble
Lord had of persuading Parliament to give the necessary
powers to the Superintendent next year.—( Cheers.)
The Bill was withdrawn, and he had recommended that

application should be made to the Chinese authorities
on the subject, ant the Honourable Member for Newark
had last night asked why they dill not apply to the Chinese
Authorities. He would ask that Hon. Member to recollect

what chance they would have had if an application had been
made to the Chinese Authorities in 1839, and no applica-
tion could have been made to them before, of obtaining any
assistance to carry their object into effect.—( Cheers. ) In
truth he was inclined to agree with the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, that any attempt by Bill to make a law intended to
be of force within the Chinese empire would be against in-
ternational law, and such as ought not to be consented to.
That Bill, however, was only asking for an extension of the
powers already granted by the Order in Council, by giving
the Superintendent power to try civil as well as criminal
cases. He now came to the great charge which had been
brought against them respecting the opium trade :
they had been charged with want of foresight and
precaution respecting this trade ; and allow him to
ask whether all the circumstances attending this trade

were not known to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
long and long ago ?—(Cheers.) Allow him to ask if all
the circumstances connected with the opium trade were not
well known to the Duke of 'Wellington ?—( Loud eheers.)
This was not by any means a new question. A Commit-
tee had sat in 1810 to discuss the question of the renewal
of tha East India Company's Charter, and this Committee
had examined into the circumstances of the opium trade.
They had made a report respecting the opium trade,
Had they said anything against the smuggling of opium ?
They had not.—(Cheers.) A Committee had again sat
on the same subject in 1832. Did they say anything re-
specting the opium trade and opium smuggling ? They
did; witnesses were examined, the atrocities of the trade
were fully exposed, reports were made, Captain Shepherd
and others were examined on the subject,and all the circum-
stances of the trade were perfectly well known. What said
the Committee of 1810? That the opium trade was liable to
be affected by many contingencies, and for this reason was
of a very fluctuating nature. What was the object of the
Committee of 1832? Now, it was necessary that this re-
port should be read to the House, because the Govern-
ment was charged with all the iniquities of the opium
trade, when that trade had been sanctioned by the House
of Commons during a long series of years. The Right
Hon. Baronet then read the Report, which stated that the
East India Company would not be justified in abandoning
so important a source of revenue as that derived from
opium, more especially when it was recollected that the
greater portion of that tax was levied upon the foreign
consumer, and that therefore, on the whole, it was a less
objectionable source of revenue than any other. But that
was not all. When the subject came on for discussion in
the House of Commons, his friend, Lord Glenelg, then
Mr. Grant, entered into a long account of every circum-
stance connected with the manner of carrying on this I
trade, of the manner in which this opium was smuggled
into China, of the way in which the local authorities not
only connived at, but actually encouraged this contraband
traffic. There was not a single circumstance connected
with the opium trade which, on that occasion, was not
fully detailed to the House by Mr. Grant, and while Mr.
Grant was making this speech in 1833, the Right
Honourable Baronet, his then colleague, was sitting
next him.—( Cheers.) Did the Right Hon. Gentleman
give any symptom of disappointment of the trade at that
time ?—( Cheers.) How were the Government to con-
duct their affairs—how were they know when their policy
was disapproved of by Parliament or by the Right Hon,
Gentleman ? The best proof that this trade was not then
disapproved of by him was that he was the colleague of
Lord Glenelg when he made that speech—( Cheers)—
that he was sitting next him when he described all the
atrocities and iniquities of the opium traffic, and his Right
Hon. Colleague the Member for Pembroke sat mute—
( Cheers)—said not a single syllable against the traffic, but
reserved all his virtuous indignation for the presen time.
—( Continued cheering.) But did any body else say any-
thing ? Yea, one solitary gentleman lifted up his voice
against the traffic. Mr. Buckingham did get up and ex-
pose the whole ; his speech was a most will:, ing one—( A
laugh)—he made a direct charge_ against the East India
Company, that the cultivation of opium was not the only
monopoly si,hic:ll they enjoyed, that by means of their mo-
nopoly they frequently raised the price of it 1,000 per
cent., that they considered it of such importance that the
Superintendent of the cultivation of opium had a larger
salary than the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench, and all this for no other purpose than for
that of smuggling it into China. Mr. Bucking-
ham had urged those points in the face of the House of
Commons, and the Right Honourable Baronet opposite.
He said that there was a monopoly of the poppy in the
hands of the East India Company, and he charged them with
its iniquities. No one, however, at ose to offer a word in re-
ply, because it was said that Mr. Buckingham had been
ill-used by the Company, and that he therefore brought
his charges against them. Not a word, however, had been
said on that occasion by the Right Hon. Baronet, or by
the Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, who was at
the time a member of the House, and what was more, who
had been a Member of the Committee which sat in 1832
on the subject of the trade in Opium—who had heard
all the evidence on the subject, and all the iniquity of thole
transactions which were demoralizing the people of China.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, did not at
the time to which he had alluded, object to the
trade on the grounds of morality and religion.—
( Hear.) That Noble Lord's indignation against the trade,
like that of hisißight Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), had
been reserved for a more suitable and convenient occasion.
For his part he did not intend to palliate the opium trade ;
but it should be known at the same time that the present
Government were not then the guilty parties. No, let his
Right Hon, Friend change the motion, and let him not
bring his charge against her Majesty's present advisers.
The Hon. Member for Newark had said last night that
the present rupture with China had been produced by a
long series of misconduct on the part of successive British
Governments; and if that were so, the Hon. Member
should not pass a vote of censure on the Ministry exclusively.
There was another which he wished to advert to. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Exeter had said that the Govern-
ment had reason to expect that the opium-trade would be
suppressed. Te eject was that that trade was known to
have been in a state of great uncertainty, but he thought
that his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was
perfectly justified in not taking any steps with respect to
that trade till ho was fully informed on the subject. The
first dispatch on the subject of the trade had been received
in Feb. 1833, and his Noble Friend afterwards made it
known to parties engaged in the trade that if they suffered
any loss they should themselves answer for it. It
would, however, have been monstrous on the part of the
British Government to have attempted forcibly to prevent
the carrying on of that trade as there was no instance of
one nation interfering with the fiscal arrangements
of another.—( Hear, hear.) That was the whole case.
He wished to ask if Hon. (Members opposite would say
that the British Government should have passed a law
making it penal for English subjects to try to smuggle any
article into the empire of China.—( Hear, hear.) The.
present Government could not be held responsible for that
which no Government could possibly effect. The charge
against them was that they had not contrived to make an
Order in Council which would prevent British subjects
from smuggling with another country. That could not be
done, and his Noble Friend had fully discharged his duty by
warning British subjects that if they continued the opium
trade with China they should do so at their own risk.
So'far was Captain Elliot from thinking at the time that the
Chinese Government was in earnest, that he wrote to
Lord Palmerston on the 2d of January, 1839, and said ho
" did not believe that the Emperor would suppress the
trade, but that he would materially check it." How then
was it possible that his Noble Friend (Lord Palmerstonl
should foresee that, on the 22d of March, 1639, Commis-
missioner Lin would come down to Canton with all those
edicts?—( Hear, hear.) Even then—even after the publi-
cation of the edicts, nobody could have supposed that Lin
would have resorted to such atrocities ?—( Hear. He
( Sir J. C. Hobhouse) was astonished to hear the Ho-
nourable and Learned Member for Exeter say that
whether the Chinese Government legalised the trade
or not, the English Government had a paramount duty
to put it down; that assertion showed (he must say)
very little knowledge of the subject.—(Hear, hear.) What
had been the effect of the repressive measures adopted by
the Commissioner? Confinement, starvation, and poison-
ing ? To show what little effect they had, he would read
letters which he had received from Lord Auckland. [The
Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to read from some
papers which he held in his hand, bnt he read them and
commented on them in so low a tone, that Members im-
mediately behind him and in other parts of the House,
called out repeatedly, " Speak out, speak out.") The
Noble Lord said, " Under all such circumstances, the
opium is rising in price, and some of the merchants are
making fortunes by the sales. One small cruiser came in
last week with seven lass oentsfht
eaaSndeyoaoct
pbnetveeeredy
Isateionitvet eetehrr, ,oa'
that
that was
Hhtehee purpose."Narreomabl II-
arma-
ment, nrOdto,osl/ai.
light—(H —dh,
tc
vessels,H\eva
irt ,h rhacerseapret.hc) I
te
tob
—(Cries of " Speak out, speak out.)
The letter stated:ottreyi
rpdohetistnaeostht
ytpwhehet acoooicatl
rffbetdett a
that Ito,
Britishi
obtain
time
ne::
tbmedpheoiepiseunntt
fast-sailing
noathdguocgea ftlp
possibility
hi
oo
Government,pt tpetphp adapted
nseHuet
knownfi
httgoehte ahhrteri
that
tradet,
ti
utahrbbtaeui ,
under con-
veyanceebtedoteasewhsiurnse.iafi
being
thought he was speaking loud enough.—( A laugh.)
ebeu rmmvt s
se brigsod.h;s _tfsori ' ettwawh: bdm
opbtHhpi
u,eeitiquite wereut
ytamr:ds
trusted
so s
endhnt
peeo obdmfas
tsbtiWithtohni rsb lucrativeoaau
ficient to state that of the whole of the'opium marnoutsfacolfutTle
Peninsula subject to British control,
in India but 20,000 chests were grown in the
p
whilst % chests
1 000 were grown in the independent territories; and all the at-
tempts tempts to limit by treaty the growth of the poppy and the ma-
nufacture of opium in these te-. ritories had failed. But if they
had succeeded, he asked, could they exterminate. the
sSiirr J
J.
GHRoA
BHIA.I
oMu—sNEo.-00(n
growth of the poppy ?
Ctinhueeedrs2His Right Hon.
Friend said with candour that they could. not. If they
could exterminate it in their own dominions, at a great
sacrifice, and not without civil commotion, it would flourish
in other territories. But all attempts to put down the
trade had uniformly failed
(e a
r 'that )H
eb tande n
takenproceeded
to read extracts to show the increase i-i
place
in the consumption of opium in spite of the restrictions.
Now as to the conduct of Captain Elliot, let it he re-
collected, he had been placed in very difficult ch cum-
stances.—( Opposition cheers.) He had to do with a
1 community much disturbed by party spirit. He had con-
' ducted himself with humanity, caution, presence of mind,
1 and ought to be cheered and supported by the approval of
that House.—( Cheers.) As to the absence of British
men of war, that could not have produced the catastrophe;
it had not prevented it in Lord Napier's time, and tits
East India Company had strongly reprobated the, practk,o
of thus exciting the jealousy and alarm of the Chinese.—
( Hear, hear.) 11 • now felt it his duty to close. —( Oppo-

sition cheer:, re-echoed by Ministerial.) He had only this
to say, as to the character of the Chinese. He wished not
to enter on the cause with any idea derogatory to that na-
tion—he only relied on the justice of our cause, and he
trusted that by the proper vindication of our honour we
should benefit not ourselves merely but the world.—( Loud
cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said, Sir, considering that
the House has been for six nights engaged in debates ou
the Corn-laws, and on China, I can -hardly be surprised
at those occasional manifestations of impatience which we
have observed this night.--( Hear, hear.) Bet I entreat
Hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the magnitude of' this
question—( Hear, bear)—and that it appears, though no
communication has been made to you by the Crown,-
though there has been no message from the Throne, upon
the subject—(Cheers)—yet from the intelligable declara-
tions of two Cabinet Ministers, we are on the ere of a war,
with a nation justly described by the Hon. Member for
Portsmouth, as, in point of resources, exceeding all Euro-
pean States—a nation, whose population amounts to
350,000,000—( Hear)—a nation, including in a word, one
third of the whole world's population.—( Cries of " Hoar.)
Can we be surprised then that the House should be
anxious to inquire into the causes of such a consumme•
tion.—( Hear, hear.) Oh, says the President of the Board
of Control, one of the parties mainly responsible for the
evil—for God's sake diseues anything but China.--
(Cheers. ) Contest the registration—( Cheers)—take a
division upon Maynooth.—( Laughter and cheers.) Per-
haps the Hon. Gentleman would advise us to occupy our
time on the Peel Club at Glasgow—(Great laughter and
cheers)—but he says, as to the question of China—the
question who is responsible, and by what means
have hostilities been brought about?—Don't touch
that, says the Right Honourable Gentleman, for
the great questions of peace and war are involved.
(Cheers.) Five and forty minutes of the Right Hon.
Gentleman's speech was occupied in commentaries upon
the terms of the motion.—(Hear, hear.) Says the Right
Hon: Gentleman, the motion contains no distinct declara•
tion of opinion but the opium question, and then he calls
it a party question.—(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Well,
what is the defence ?—(Tremendous cheers from the Op-
position.) What is this unmeaning clamour about party
question ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Is it not the incident of
free discussion that on the smallest matters the conduct of
the Government should be examined P.--(Cheers.) Is it
perfectly novel in the history of this country that motions
should be brought forward of a retrospective nature?—
( Cheer-.) Why, what event during the war was not
made the subject of inquiry by opposition ?—( Hear, beer.)
Did the expedition to the Scheldt escape 2—( Hoar, hear.)
Did the Convention of Cintra escape?—(Hear, hear.)
Did the battle of Talavera escape?—( Hear, hear.) Did
not the Marquis of Lansdowne, in 1810, propose a retro-
spoctive censure of the Duke of Wellington and the
Ministry—( Hear, hoar)— and would not the Noble Marquis
have been surprised if be had been answered by a demand
for all the despatches he himself would have written ?--
( Hear, hear.) Did not Lord John Cavendish bring for-
ward a resolution, attributing the loss of America to the
negligence and want of foresight of the Government ?---
( Hear, hear.) Could my Right Hon Friend the Member
for Pembroke have found a better Whig precedent.--
( Cheers ana laughter)—and can it be pretended that the
question of peace and war is forbidden ground for this
House, and that the magnitude of the interests which maY
have been put in jeopardy is to secure a Ministry
punity ?—( Cheers.) Sir, this motion is limited to a dis-
visa declaration that the present unfortunate state of
affairs with China is to be attributed to the negligence and
want of foresight of the Government—it does not express
as to the policy of the war—and, let me say, these Ties-
tions may be perfectly distinct.—( Cheers.) The war may
be just and politic, and yet the necessity for it may have
arisen from misconduct.—( Cheers.) It may be, that
from contests and collisions, continued for a long series of
years, a country, unaccustomed to European laws or
usages, may break out into an act of outrage, which will
leave no alternative but war. It may be, for instance,
that the first collision between the Chinese and the British
Empires may have taken place improvidently, so that the
credit of the British arms cannot be retrieved without
some manifestation. It may be that a shot was tired unin-
tentionally, and in a moment of irritation, egainst an in-
ferior force. It may be that a notice of blockade was
followed in three days by a recal ; and it may be necessary
and just to correct those erroneous impressions.—( Hears
hear.) But, consistently with all this, it may be true
that the necessity for a war arose from the gross miscon-
duct of Ministers.—(Hear, hear, hear.) And I ask,
be so, whether they ought to escape with impunity?
He wished to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman that
there was no one who more lamented the breaking out of
the war with France than the late Mr, Fox. There was
no one who thought that war was a greater calamity than
be did ; nor was there any person more an advocate for its
termination ; but Mr. Fox supported the armament by
which it was carried on, though at the same time he brought
forward a motion of censure upon the Government whose.
acts had caused it. The language of Mr. Fox on tlee
18th of Feb., 1792, was this : he said that "they were,
then actually engaged in war, and being so engareeu
there could be no difference of °pillion as to the necessity
of supporting it." It could not be imputed to him that he
us is
the any want of disposition support it ; for though, n
the debate on the address in answer to the bPeech
,
announcing war, he had deprecated it, yet he felt bound
to support it wheal it had commenced, and that Right Hon-
Gentleman moved a resolution to the effect, that in the
late negotiations his Majesty's Ministers had
such measures as would produce redress, without a rupture, I
of the grievances of which he complained. He (Sir H.
Peel) considered that they had shown from authority
that would be respected on the other side of the Hous%
that the same Members who might admit the necessity oi
war might, at the same time feel it
necessary to censure
those whose conduct had caused it.—(Hear, hear.) Hip
,
firm belief was that the necessity for this war existed ina'rY
in consequence of the course pursued by the Goversnoen'y
He believed in the possibility of its being averted, nit%
not taken
some foresight incomprehensible to the limited faene-ic '
of human nature, but by the most ordinary attet-e7,
to the position of the affairs of this country in r 3bad
by taking warning from the experience they haut 3
of the failures of their attempts by listening to j,
earnest representations of their own representatives, bt
above all, by fortifying them with the power they ilt11;e0
have entrusted to them, and giving them instructions B"s,the
their views and intentions, which he was sorry to adlTee
present Government had studiously withheld. f_
charge against the Government was that they had not sna
ficient foresight to know what the Emperor erf Chin,
was going to do. The charge was that after is'ne deter'
mination of the relations between the East India Ce
pany and the Chinese, which had existed for 200 Years
the Government of this country had sent a
gentleman to China to represent the Cro
of this country there without the powers they might t; _
;
given him—nay, which it was their duty to give him, an the:
the absence both of power and instruction, without et,
moral influence of a naval force. Now what badbawat
the answer to that which had been given by the ie7„'sid
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh ? He n.titu
—True, the instructions given were of a scanty and bate
gre nature; true, they were of such a nature as to to
been without excuse if they had been given with respecte
Brussels or Paris. But he said India we's best gover_tnic
in India.--( Hear.) Did the Right Hon. Gentleman India
there was any analogy between the government of l'ee.
and the situation in which Capt. Elliot has been Phi'vvete
India was a government to which the people look UP es-
respect. It had a powerful fleet, an immense military re, ,
tablishment, and recognised laws, and it was absurd, ti,lethe
fore, to surpose there was any analogy between it and
situation of Capt. Elliot. The reference to such an
logy showed the disadvantage he was attempting t° if le
port. If this had been the case—if they had furnished jey
Superintendent with the full authority with which "seer
were enabled to furnish hint—if they had passed en es
in Council first of all specifying what were the regultetto
they had established—what affairs were a breach of the!':
regulations, and then had constituted a Court of litigit:d
ralty, and then one of criminal jurisdiction—if tli,"eYse n•
indicated the general views of the policy of the ue„'-the
ment, and had said to the Superintendent—Here ar`'heee
powers which the law enables us to entrust to Yetl--- the
are the general views with respect to trade in Chlea'nica-
place of your residence, and the mode of your commenserae
tion—then, indeed, the Government might have bad the
case with which to meet the present motion. But
course 14
course pursued by the Government was exactly over
verse ; they gave the Superintendent worse than nonF' the
at all, for they gave him the semblance of it withu port.
reality. They gave him a broken reed for hi° then theY
They gave him contradictory instructions, and 003
pretended that on account of the distance it was vast
Did the A
to explain the course he ought to pursue. it,
India Company find that difficulty ? Let tne _war-
the despatches which they sent to their
cargoes In 1832, and having read those deaf way
tangible. There were three main charges
let them ask whether the vindication now put fel. were
brought against the Government first, the wante ; but,
struetions ; secondly, the absence of a naval fnveGoveru. I
above all, a want of the authority and power the. He
ment had the means under their control givtng.absee ;
believed he had demonstrated that a naval force was hr t
nment
when it was essentially necessary. The Gover d - see
relied upon the moral • • • h over an h.
influence which, ee s 6 ip
again, the Superintendent had said the presence ei„ •
of, war in the waters of China would exercise. "eel
e, 4... bad
he would ask, could have been easier than to Tiear.)
a ship of war in the waters of Canton ?--(llearee 0011
that
of
They thought the Duke of Wellington said the ; but
force was necessary only until the trade was s'ettl
nolf
the Noble Duke would have adopted the Ilicydone an'
Davis and Sir George Robinson, and then, l'sav-la.g., e trade
he thought the naval force would be necessary untilenn ffer_
was firmly established; but the Governme-at pursued
a naval force of the utmost importance,
ylw'retendent was
considering the position in which the Supepnle
questiot
ent'poliev, and one which rendered the continued per:ape:Vl;
placed. He would confine himself to one suig
with
genee in not giving the Superintendent the p o"
It r ,igbS
viz., whether the Government was chargeableovt _ nerl::
sary for the due performance of his funetionseum.
opiso _
ears
in
that
te been impossible
oimulpdogssiivbelen suppresstooopi n
io n ; thea
Committee,
after the ea' ?spates'''.
suppression of that trade, but , s that
me et sot _
ago, had considered the subject, and reported aft" t
which had arrived in this country on the s ,
which had taken place in the manner of conduce
trade up to June 13, 1835—after the irr
giving it a character ten times more learmidable thannrnie
any preceding period—when the Sup erintendent in f
them of the shame and disgrace oft A., trade, and the
of its getting into worse and worsen 'hands, and for the!rei's%
,poreant ebna:g.te,
of a few reckless individuals, 'exempt from all law B %1 A
cr Chinese, the honour of Pee country was compronitt
in characters that coulee
had a series of despaf_ches received up to the 13th ofii_e • e,
d, alit
1835, forewarnino•
them of what was to occur, he wou
make
whether it we., afit and proper communication to w
upon a stf„ject of such im for the Noble Lord
portance
f..4uporin-
ackne not be mistaken—when Y,
;,sledge the despatches, and while the _
t.endent was asking for instructions, to say
Government entirely approved of the steps he
taken, and then to press upon him the necessity el his
attempting to obtaii., the substitution of some less ,
objec-
tionable term than that of Pin.—(Hear and cheers.)
that
,tsnicei