The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-09 00:00:00

THE CHINA QUESTIOY.

One of the qualities which combine to fit an
Englishman for .constitutional government is his
habit of submission to the will of the majority. A
Frenchman, a German, or an Italian always has
" an idea : " his notion of liberty is to obtain the
liberty of carrying out that idea, and regenerat;ng
all mankind by force. There was, a short time ago,
a dwindling patty among our own public men,
whose borrowed watchword was, "Everything for
the people, and nothing by the people," the dogma
of a tyrant. Our Constitution is founded upon
principles the very contrary to that dogma. It
works out in action the celebrated maxim of Plato
—" We may endeavour to persuade our fellow-
citizens, but it is not lawful to force them even
to that which is best for them." In Eng-
land, when the decision of the constituencies
has been distinctly given, the public action of the
Government must be in accordance with that deci-
sion, or the Constitution is violated.
It appears 'Teller odd that the public man wno
stands' most in need of being reminded of these
trite constitutional truths should be Lord J. Rus-
sel!. If ever there was a question upon which the
sense of the country was solemnly asked and dis-
tinctly declare 1, it was upon the policy to be
adopted by this country towards the Empire of
China. There could be no mistake about
the answer, and there can be no doubt that
if the same question were again put the answer
would be equally decisive. Now, Lord John
R.esell in the speech which be made on
this subject on Friday night does not attempt
to re-argue the question, does not " code r•
your to persuade his fellow-citizens ; but, in a
spirit of carping and cavilling, he str;ves to impede
the action of the Minister who is giving operation
to the national policy in that distant country, and
he too evidently is urging the present Government
to act in disobedience to the expressed will of the
I alloe. The whole tone of his remarks tends to
encourage the Government to curtail the discre-
tionary powers of our ambassador in Chins, and to
discourage him in his very difficult task of laying
broad foundations for our future commercial opera-
tiens in that country. But the absence of all accu-
rate information betrayed by Lord John Rus-
sell's speech is still more remarkable, and affords
melancholy proof how little even our best pub-
lic men feel the obligation of mastering ques-
tions of the highest import, when they are
out of the ordinary sphere of party warfare, and
affect distant countries. Lord John pretended to
inform the house of the number of men engaged
in the war with China, and he exaggerated it by
including those employed on the coast of India,
and even the Naval Brigade now serving on the
Upper Ganges. He st tted that "it could not be
supposed it was for the purpose of settling the
clitetion of reparation to individuals for the
injuries British subjects had suffered that
Lord Elgin had proceeded north ;" but he thus
manifested not only an entire unacquaintauce
with the only means of bringing any influence to
bear upon the Court of Pekin, but a much more
unaccountable forgetfulness of what had previously
passed in the House of Commons. It has been
proved that the Emperor of China cares nothing
for the occupation of Canton. That operation was
necessary to recover our lost prestige among the
people of China, but it has had no effect upon the
counsels of the Emperor. The only way by which
peace and compensation can be obtained is by di-
rect communication with the Emperor, and Lord
Palmerston has declared over and over again in
the House of Commons that the destination of the
Elgin Embassy was Pekin. The treaty now in
force gives us the right of immediate communica-
tion with the high officers at Pekin. That com-
munication has just been formally denied to us.
Lord Elgin has gone to exercise in person our
treaty rights, and, if he is accompanied by a fleet
and an army, it is because the obstinacy of the
Chinese Court renders it necessary to sup-
pert our treaty rights by force. Nothing can be
more simple. If Lord John would only afford five
minutes to a perusal of the treaty, and clear his
head of certain antipathies, he would find it a very
plain matter. Unhappily, however, Lord John
will not do this. As he states the amount of the
force in China without knowing it, so he quotes
the treaty without reading it. He says :
" We know that there were two articles which were not
observed. One article gave us the right to enter the city of
Canton as well as four other cities, and that article has been
perpetually violated by the refusal of the local government
to allow the admission of British subjects into Canton.
Another article in a very solemn manner bound US to
tradepre-
of opium with China, and that article of
vtlii%uttrtehae ty
has been as notoriously violated as the others.
I believe it is au article very difficult to fulfil, and pro-
bably the Chinese Custom-house officers have been as
notoriously
e
willing to violate that article as those who
hv
brought opium from India and engaged in the traffic
of that article. This is the position in which we stand
with regard to the treaty.
Now, with submission to Lord John, this is not
the position in which we stand with re' rd to the
treaty. Will it be believed in Rigland that this
deliberate statement made by L rd John Russell
is a mere figment of his own imagination ? In our
treaty wills China, not only is there no such
article es that imagined and produced by Lord
John Russell to call down the cheers of the
House, but in that treaty the wer ! " opium" is
never mentioned. L is sedul rusty and even osten-
tatiously excluded ; for while in the treaty with
America opium is inserted as a prohibited article,
this word is omitted in the treaty with England.
Very evil habits are creeping in among our public
men as to the relation between words and facts,
but the House of Commons has a tight to more ac-
curate information than this from men whom that
assembly trusts.
With the observations made by Mr. Bright, as
to the inconvenience possib'e to arise from the
joint operation of the four Powers, we are to a
certain extent iuolined to concur. No doubt, we
have abundant power to- chastise the insolence of
half-a-dozen Chinese Emperors, and we are able
single-handed,- there or elsewhere, to vindicate our
own honour. No doubt, we should have been

much better pleased to be left alone to settle our
own quarrel. But the nature of the co-operation
with our allies seems to be misunderstood. There
is no convention, no alliance, no defined common
object—unless, perhaps, the published letter of
Lord Elgin to Yeh may be supposed to create
an obligation to retain Canton until the French
demands as well as our own are ceded. Each
nation has its separate grievance, and has made
its separate written demand. It will be probably
be found that these State papers agree very nearly
in the future securities they demand against
the infraction of treaties and the ill-treat'
went of foreigners. This concord is probably not
quite accidenthl, but surely it is not undesirable.
It is in itself a proof that the public opinion and
the State policy of all the civilised nations of the
word are united upon this point ; and that, in
moderation and in justice, we are all led to adopt
the same remedies as the only cure for diversified
injuries. What would Mr. Bright have bad us do I
Would he have divided our squadron into two parts
drawing up one part to keep off the French, the
Americans, and the Russians, while with the other
half he thrashed the Chinese ! Or what would be
have done in the subsequent negotiations ? Would
he have satisfied himself with introducing Mr.
Parkes into Canton, while the French were obtain-
ing for their countrymen free transit through China?
It does so happen that the same remedy will secure
the lives of French missionaries, and will further
the development of English commerce. France is
determined to protect her citizens, and demands
that Frenchmen may lawfully travel in China under
the protection of the Chinese Government. Does
Mr. Bright wish that we should go to war with
France to compel her to desist from this demand ;
or does he wish that Eaglishmen should be ex-
cluded from the privileges that Frenchmen are.
about to obtain, and which are reasonable in them'
selves and quite nece,sary for the security of indi-
viduals and the peace of nations ?—Times.