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

THE CHINA QUESTION.

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 regenerating
all mankind by force. There was, a short time ago,
a dwindling party among our own public men,
whose borrowed watchword was, "Everything for
the people, and nothing by the people," the dogma
of a tyrant. Oar 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 rather odd that the public man wno
stands most in need of being reminded of these
trite constitutional truths should be Lord J. Rus-
sell. 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
Russell in the speech which ho made on
this subject on Friday night does not attempt
to re-argue the question, does not " endea-
vour to persuade his fellow-citizens ; but, in a
spirit of carping and cavilling, he strives to impede
the action of the Minister who is giving operation
to the national policy iu that distant country, and
he too evidently is urging the present Government
to act in disobedience to the expressed will of the
nation. The whole tone of his remarks tends to
encourage the Government to curtail the discre-
tionary Rowers of our ambassador in China, and to
discourage him in his very difficult task of laying
broad foundations for our future commercial opera-
tions 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 bow 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 ho exaggerated it by
including those employed on the coast of India,
and even the Naval Brigade now serving on the
Upper Ganges. He stated that "it could not be
supposed it was for the purpose of settling the
question 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
Paltnerston 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-
port 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 Aar 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:—
o b s"e rWv eed k.
n o
Own
et haartt
itch].
ee rsea wv
ee
ur:e tt wh
eo
rai
gr
tc
toe s
ownht crht
hwe e :jot
yn oo
ft
Canton as well as four other cities, and that article has been
perpetually violated by the refusal of the local governmen
to allow the admission of British subjects into Canton

Another article in a very solemn manner bound us to pre-
vent the trade of opium with China, and that article of
the treaty has been as notoriously violated as the others.
I believe it is an article very difficult to fulfil, and pro-
bably the Chinese Custom-house officers have been as
notoriously willing to violate that article as those who
have 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 England that this
deliberate statement made by L I'd John Russell
is a mere figment of his own imagination ? In our
treaty with China, not only is there no such
article as tint imagined and produced by Lord
John Russell to call down the cheers of the
House, but in that treaty the word " opium" is
never mentioned. It is seduluus'y and even osten-
' tatiously excluded ; for whiie in the treaty with
AmelicA 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 right to more ac-
curate information than this from men whom that
assembly trusts.
With the observations made by Mr. Bright, as
to the inconvenience possiVe to arise from tbe
joint opera ion of the fiur Powers, we are to a
certain extent inclined to concur. o 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