The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-31 00:00:00

I_,:r,IDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 1867

The Chinese High Commissioner at Canton
seems to have a cacoethes scribeisdi, but his repug-
nance to oral communications with British autho-
rities of equal rank seems quite equal to his love
of letter writing. Proceedings like those of Chan-
cery, or of our Ecclesiastical Courts, would have
been his delight had he been an English lawyer.
He will write, but converse he will not. Not
only will he write himself, but he will set his good
Cantonese a writing too. Yesterday we gave
some further documents from this easternmost
" seat of war"—and their eloquence will doubtless
affect Manchester, and its organs of the Press, almost
to tears. The one purporting to emanate from
the inhabitants of Canton is a curious production.
Doubtless it originated from the orders of YEH
the immovable ; yet, by implication, it throws the
blame of refusing concession on him. While
deploring the mischief done by the fire of the
British, it owns that our object was to obtain
" amicable relations," and further acknowledges
that the authorities were able to accord " official
receptions" and admission into the city. •
Very loyally, to be sure, to the said authori-
ties, it affirms that the authorities were unable to
protect us in quiet commercial intercourse with
the petitioning citizens ; the worthy Cantonese
do not seem to reflect that they cannot avoid
proving either themselves or their Governor
guilty of commercial inhospitality, and even of
violation of an unmistakeable Treaty. If they
themselves, as YEH alleges, will not let him admit
foreigners to the rights of peaceful commercial
intercourse guaranteed us by Treaty, whyp then
they have no reason to complain of the punish-
ment they are now undergoing. Their petition
to our authorities amounts to this : We are such
barbarous savages that we will murder any of
you who leave the decks of your ships to step on
shore, or who venture beyond the hot walls of
your factories ; and we will do this,
our EMPEROR, to whom in opposition to your
demands we alt hough
profQss such respect, has made a
Treaty with you which requires us to concede what
you ask. These savages, indeed, talk of having
carried on trade with 113 amicably for a century.
The amity notoriously consisted in Englishmen
and all other foreigners submitting to every in-
suit and indignity they chose to offer us ; above
all to the amicable relation of our never stepping
beyond the factory walls.. No doubt this self-
convicting evidence will be approvingly quoted
by the peace-at-any-price party here. Perhaps
we shall have a subscription got up for the gentle

Cantonese, and it can be carried to them when
our gnus have compelled them to receive the
bearers of foreign communications.

Of course YE.II himself is not less eloquent than
the subjects of his Viceroyalty. He, on his part,

;hrows on them all the blame of disenabling him

from safely receiving our Commissioner in person.
Sir JOHIT BowELNO, however, assures him that if

he wants the means •f giving him a safe conduct

:o his " yamun," he (Sir J. BOWRING) can pro-

vide for that himself. This is a puzzler for YELL
He has, however, two rejoinders-Ist, How dare
he disobey his Imperial Majesty, who (his Ma-
jesty's solemn Treaty to the contrary notwith-

standing) orders him not to see foreigners. And,
2dly, He fears Sir JOHN would expose himself

to mortal danger. A matter, we may be sure, of

great concern to the decapitator of se'venty thou-
sand unfortunate prisoners, and the proclaimer of
a reward for the heads of British barbarians. A
Proclamation, by the bye, which seems not to have
been altogether without its effect, since an unfor-
tunate marine having, contrary to orders, gone

ashore at a village to get fresh articles, was seized,
beheaded, and his body thrown into the river,
while a companion, who endeavoured to escape,

was drowned.
Sir JOHN BOWRINO, in his last communication,
informs YEH that he shall apprise the Court of
Peking of all the needless miseries which YRI has
brought on the people by his obstinacy ; and,
could he do this, we think it likely TER might
tremble for his post. It is at least highly probable
that the EMPEROR has received nothing but a
tissue of misrepresentations from his Commissioner,
and that if he knew the truth his orders might be
very different. What means Sir JOHN has of
reaching the Court of Peking we are not aware.
Probably his antagonist is well aware that he can
keep any communication made by the British from
arriving at Peking. If so he will only amuse
himself with the empty but otherwise formidable
threat. We have observed that one point now
demanded by those who may properly ask for
a new and better Treaty is, that foreigners shall
be allowed to have representatives at the Imperial
Court—a measure, we must think, of true huma-
nity, since it would keep the Supreme Government
informed of much that is now presented to it only
in the corrupt missives of the corrupt Mandarins.
A correspondent of the Daily News says that
since the first flush of success, and th e consequent
excitement, some persons are beginning to ask
whether the whole affair might not have been
referred home. This would have been mere waste
of time. YEH, now, attacks the Act itself by
which the Arrow was declared a British vessel
under British protection, and demands that the
Treaty shall not be carried out. It is not likely
that our Government will disallow the Act, or
that, after having so recently sent out instructions
to have the Treaty enforced at Canton, it would
give up the Treaty. Evidently our duty is to insist
on the Chinese Government compelling their gentle
Cantonese to obey the Treaty, or to enforce it our-
selves by the only means which are left. A writer,
however, from Calcutta observes : " The feeling
in this country as to the attack on Canton is one
of unqualified approval. Anglo-Indians are too
much accustomed to Orientals to believe that
argument has any efficacy unless backed by an
overwhelming force. Sir JOHN BOWRING is for
the present very decidedly popular." We believe
such to be the opinion of almost all conversant
with thR East. Indeed we must think that those
who can defend the Cantonese in their resistance
to commercial intercourse, and the existing Treaty,
must feel themselves reduced to a miserable
quarrel about empty technicalities.

The monetary code must inevitably be revised
during the coming session. This important duty
can no longer be evaded or postponed. The Act
of 1844 has virtually expired, and Government
must necessarily grapple with the difficulty. Al-
most any law is better than the prevailing un-
certainty, in which the most experienced men
are groping blindfolded, not knowing what course
may be adopted, or on what system the circulat-
ing medium of the country may be regulated.
The public at large, but more especially the com-
mercial and manufacturing interests, have a right
to demand that this untoward state of affairs may
be brought to a speedy conclusion, that the all-
important problem shall receive a satisfactory
solution at the earliest period possible.
It is possible that a Parliamentary investiga-
tion may take place. But that can only be
required for the purpose of procrastination, of
shelving the subject, until the excitement
occasioned by the severe restrictions, so
prejudicial to all descriptions of industry,
has subsided, and the nation, appeased by tempo-
rary relief, may again endure such stringent
measures as the mischievous theories of the cur-
rency quacks may suggest. It has already,
however, had enough of the proceedings of a
packed committee, when the original framers and
pledged advocates of the unwise and impolitic
measure sat in solemn judgment on their own
offspring, and controlled the eleven independent
members who declared, that " the laws for regu-
lating the issue of bank notes, payable on demand,
aggravated the commercial distress ix England in
the year 1847." Indeed Sir CHARLES WOOD him-
self admitted that the judgment of the committee
of the House of Commons was " a foregone con-
clusion," and boldly justified the legislative farce
by declaring, to the effect, that a Minister would
be wrong to assent to the formation of a committee
unless he was aware of the nature of the report on
which they would agree. The nation was, how-
ever, bamboozled by the solemn mockery, and the
Act which was virtually condemned and annulled
by the immediate and complete success that at-
tended its temporary suspension, that was to all
intents and purposes, abrogated by the Govern-
ment Letter of the 25th October, 1847, continued
in operationi.to the present time.
There has already been sufficient inquiry. Par-
liament possesses ample materials for immediate le-
gislation. The clear and impartial report of the
Lords' Committee still remains on record, which
unequivocally condemned the statute, the operation
whereof " materially aggravated" the then recent
panic, which, it declared, might " be traced directly
to the Act of 1844, in the legislative restrictions
imposed on the means of accommodation, whilst a
large amount of bullion was held in the coffers of
the Bank, and during a time of favourable ex-
changes ; and it might be traced to the same
cause indirectly, as a, consequence of great fluc-
tuations in the rate of discount and of capital
previously advanced at a low rate of interest."
, That masterly Report, and the evidence on
which it was framed, together with the
recent experience of the working of the measure,
which made the rate of discount vibrate between
2 and 12 per cent., is conclusive on the ques-
tion, and does away with the necessity for
further investigation. For 135 years, from 1704
to 1839, the rate never exceeded 5, or was less
than 4 per cent., and, though during the crisis of
1839 it was for a few months raised to 6 per
cent., it was again reduced to 5 per cent. in
January, 1840, and continued between a and • 4
per cent, until after the passing of the fatal law.