11 APRIL 1840, Page 1

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

ANOTHER Whig-and-Tory fight, on new ground—prolonged throughout three weary nights, with enormous waste of "words, words"—terminated at four o'clock yesterday morning, in the escape of Ministers; saved once more by the " measuring-cast majority," now diminished to nine. The week opened with an elaborate apology by the Times, on Monday morning, for the Conservative tactics on the Opium War question. A visible consciousness that the form in which Sir JAMES GRAHAM proposed to shape his motion was ill calculated to secure votes, which could not have been withheld from a manly pro- test against the war, pervaded the attempt of the Leading Journal to place the Tory resolution in the most favourable light. On the other hand, the Ministerial Globe of the same day put forth a Treasury brief, as palpably exhibiting alarm lest, through a change in the terms of the motion, Ministers should lose the support of a class of Members who, albeit eager on all occasions to "curry favour" in Downing Street, must yet have a pretence to fall back upon, and who would not venture to affirm the monstrous proposi- tion, that this country is justified in compelling China to legalize the opium-trade and compensate the smugglers who lost their property in the act of violating her laws. Not only the senthnent- alists, who profess horror of opium beyond other means of excite- ment and inebriety, but they who condemn the encouragement of illicit commerce by a great public body like the East India Com- pany, would have been obliged to support, or at any rate refrain from opposing, a motion which deprecated hostilities with China on account of her measures taken to suppress that trade. This is our ground : we have never canted about the morality or immo- rality of opium-smoking, more than of cigar-smoking ; but have entered our protest against the conduct of the British Govern- ment, and of the British merchants, accomplices in the systematic violation of the Chinese laws, for the sake of revenue and profit from opium smuggled into China. The support which might have been gained by a distinct declaration against the justice and policy of such a war, the Opposition leaders deliberately repudiated. Their aim was merely to damage the Ministers, but keep them in office, with all the responsibility attached to the management of affairs in Asia. In these tactics the success of the Opposition has been complete. Sir .lasins GRAHAM'S resolution censured the Government for neglecting to supply the '3uperintendent in China with sufficient powers and proper instructions, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty. First, as to his powers. It' any reliance is to be placed on Captain leraaoT s own opinion, the Government at home could have furnished him with sufficient authority to avert much of the mischief that has occurred. This is disputed. Mr. Maesu LAT Ilnd Sir JOHN 110111IOESE ridiculed the notion of suppressing the opium-traffic. It is easy, however, to conceive that powers less than what so extensive a service would require, might have enabled the Superintendent to preserve order and prevent irritating collisions between the British subjects and the Chinese, For instance, he might have been in- vested with sufficient authority to stop the voyage of the Thomas Coutts to Canton ; the master of which vessel disregarded an order that he could disobey with impunity. But, without going into the

details of this part of the question, we ask, in the first place, whether, if such powers as Captain Em.lirr desiderated could have

been procured, who ought to have furnished them or applied for

them, if not the Government ? and secondly, it' any addition to those powers would be useless or impracticable, is not the case

hopeless thr the future as well as the past ; and must we not either abandon the trade in opium, or be prepared to maintain it by war without end?

Whatever doubt may exist on the question of powers, the charge of neglect to forward instructions to the Superintendent was fully made out. Indeed, the attempt to rebut it scarcely deserves no- tice, for it could not have been serious. One Member ingeniously

suggested that no instructions were the best instructions; another, that because India was best governed in India, therefore Captain ELLIOT—uninstructed and unempowered—ought to be left to his own devices in China : and Lord PALMERSTON could only support an assertion that he had never failed to send instructions when needed, by the childish repartee, that he had written two letters during the time in which the Duke of WELLINGTON had written one, and therefore deserved twice as much praise as the Duke! As a set-off to this self-applause, the reader may consult Sir ROBERT PEEL's striking demonstration, from the printed Correspondence, of the Foreign Secretary's " gross and intolerable neglect" of the most pressing applications from Captain ELLIOT for assistance and advice. Not only in his correspondence with the Superintendent is Lord PALMERSTON chargeable with misconduct—he concealed from Parliament matters of the utmost importance ; and when he introduced his China Courts Bill, two years ago, laid papers on the table calculated to produce an impression that our affairs in China were in a satisfactory posture, when he knew the very reverse.

The retort to the charge of neglect and omission was—" What would you have done?" and Ministers affected :to triumph in the inability of the Opposition to print out a specific mode of action by which the existing difficulties might have been avoided. The defence is not exculpatory. The Opposition was not respon- sible for the conduct of affairs. The Tories were not upon their trial. The Whigs were ; and they are not entitled to acquittal on the plea that their prosecutors might have been guilty of a similar offence under similar circumstances.

But, said ;Ministers to their opponents, " What would you do now and in future ? You must adopt our policy. We defy you to change it, should we be driven out." The Conservatives submitted to the taunt : they had shaped their course to give the Ministerial party this advantage,—of which that party, one and all, eagerly availed themselves in the debate.

Although not mooted in Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S motion, the justice or injustice of the war had necessarily a prominent part in the dis- cussion. And we apprehend, that all doubt as to war being intended, is at an end: even Mr. H.SWES, who excused his vote for Ministers on the no-war hypothesis, probably knows better now. The convenient falsehood implied in Lord PaLmensTox's term "communications," will no longer serve its turn. When a large fleet is equipped in the English ports and ordered to join a squadron in the East Indies, there to take on board an army of ten thousand men—when immense quantities of bombs, shells, and other imple- ments of destruction, are prepared, and the entire armament is destined for China—it would be too stupid for a joke, and too im- pudent for diplomacy itself, to pretend that any thing short of open war is expected. To remove all doubt on the subject, Mr. Mae- MOAT and Sir JOHN HOBUOUSE admitted that England was about to engage in a war with China, and one of so serious a character that it was impossible by declamation to exaggerate its importance. Lord PALMERSTON hoped that the Chinese territory would not be "ravaged" more than the occasion absolutely required ; and Sir GEORGE STAUNTON warned the House that it would not be a short, but a "protracted war." Sir GEORGE STAUNTON'S testimony to this point is valuable, as he possesses statistical information, bear- ing upon it, mhich very few others have acquired. His opinion on the policy of the war belongs to a different category : it will pass for its weight in reasons, and nothing more. It is, how- ever due to Sir GEORGE STAUNTON to •remark. that while other supporters of Government, and Ministers themselves, talked vaguely about the reestablishment of trade, reparation of wrongs, and national honour, and reproduced the sickening slang of the "Me and fortune" men of the last French war, Sir Gronon said the war with China had become necessary to the stet!/ qf the British dominion in the East, and for that reason he supported it.

Ministers, though pressed for a eFstinct ana intelligible state- ment of their intentions, shielded themselves in sounding gene- ralities : and it may safely be asserted, that hostilities against a foreign nation never were undertaken with a less definite object, or with greater uncertainty as to cost, aeration, and results. All this is certainly known seems to be, that England is going to attack a nation of three hundred and fifty millions, distant fifteen thousand miles from her shores, and with very imperfect informa- tion as to the real nature of the dispute. Por be it remembered, the ease against China is 0'.r jute—no counter-statement has been sent from Pekin. Parliament is acting in the dark, and may be assuming that to be true which is utterly Case, or which would ap- pear in a very ditli‘rent light it' all the circumstances connected with it were developed. Much stress is hail on insulting language of the Chinese functionaries, but it is known that sonic of the ap- parently offensive expressions have not even a disrespectful mean- ing. Again, it is alleged that the Chinese " poisoned the wells," (an old Oriental means of defence against invasion ;) and this was repeatedly mentioned as a fair ground of hostilities, and proof

that the Chinese regarded neither the laws of God nor man. But the fact rests on the most slender authority ; and were there no doubt of it, we cannot view it as much more atrocious than setting a town on fire with red-hot balls, and other approved modes of warfare in Europe. It is not pretended that any one person was treacherously poisoned: on the contrary, public notice was given, (if' the whole story is not a fabrication,) to prevent the English families from going to the wells ; and the object was the legitimate one of expelling a set of lawless and reckless invaders of their country, without recourse to personal violence. The importance attached to this apocrphal poisoning story, shows the weakness of the Opium War party s case, even in the absence of the Chinese version of the occurrences.

But, on whichever side justice may be England is at war with China ; and the important question is asked—who is to blame for bringing the country into this difficulty ? The reply is "Nobody!" Noady has done the mischief. Read the three nights' debate, and that is the most satisfactory answer the collective wisdom of the House of Commons will be found to supply.

Some inquisitive persons may perhaps be disposed to search a little closer into the matter, and they may come to the following conclusions. 1st, That the Government and Parliament of 1833 laid the foundation of difficulty in their slovenly legislation on matters of which they were supremely ignorant. 2d, That the Government of 1834 made a most improper selection of a Superin- tendent in the person of Lord NAPIER, and betrayed their incapa- city by imperfect and impracticable instructions. 3d, That the Ministers who have held office since, with the exception of the Duke of WELLINGTON, neglected Chinese affairs. 4th, That Cap- tain ELLIOT, though deserving commiseration for the embarras- sing circumstances of his situation, and occasionally exhibiting vigour and discretion, has too frequently been vacillating and in- consistent, and has contributed much to embroil parties and per- plex the question. 5th, That the British East India Company, and the British merchants engaged in the contraband trade in opium, hava been the most acth•ely guilty.

Thus, although " nobody ' will confess misconduct, there are, we think, many parties to blame. All these will escape punish- ment and close scrutiny into their proceedings, by war—and some of them will probably gain in other ways : no wonder, therefore, the Opium War has strong supporters.

Having noticed most of the principal points suggested by the debate, we now come to the division. Ministers escaped censure by the miserable majority of 9—the numbers being 271 to 262.* In the majority were 37 placemen : deduct their own votes, and Ministers would have been condemned by a majority of 262 to 234. On Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER'S " no-confidence " motion, the numbers were 308 to 287—difference 21 ; so that the vote of Thurs- day exhibits a decline of 50 per cent. on the Ministerial majority. Both questions were intrinsically the same—censure and want of confidence—and were treated as such. The decline of the Minis- terial majority was not occasioned by any Liberal Members chan- ging sides, but by the absence of several who used to be stanch voters.

A majority of 9 on such a question, in a House of 533 Mem- bers, would have been fatal to the existence of any preceding Ad- ministration: and it argues a contempt of the opinion of Parlia- ment, and a degree of assurance never equalled, to persevere in plunging the country into war on the strength of such a vote. Mi- nisters dare not ask for a vote approving their policy, any more than they could have ventured to meet Sir Joust BULLER'S motion with a resolution of "confidence."

The speeches were, for the most part, destitute of animation and stimulus. " The Blue Book" furnished the materials ; which were reproduced again and again, for the edification of a rather in- attentive assembly. Sir JAMES GRAHAM was, as usual, pains- taking in the use of his documents ; and his speech, though tire- some to hear and to read, was not deficient in ponderous ability. Mr. MACAULAY regained part of the reputation he lost by his speech on Sir JOHN BULLER'S motion : the centos of common- places about MILTON, LOCKE, and CLARENDON, were discarded for commonplaces of the Whig journals, with a flavour of cant, more germane to the matter in hand ; which being well conned and fluently delivered, enabled the clacqueurs to exercise their vocation by puffing the orator as a miracle in unsuspected powers of " reply." Mr. CHARLES Bunrairt was by far the most skilful and ingenious volunteer in the Ministerial service : when the time for " recon- struction" comes round again, Ministers would do well to secure his aid by an appointment to an office of greater importance than the one which they offered and lie refused last year. Sir Wiinwsi FOLLETT exposed the injustice of applying the Eu- ropean code of international law to China. Sir GEORGE STAUB.. TON threw the weight of his experience into the Ministerial scale, and must have been almost overwhelmed with the ex- pressions of gratitude for his help. Mr. THESIGER'S maiden speech was a wearisome affitir. Mr. WILLIAM GLADSTONE'S, very clever, cutting, and difficult to answer. An unguarded expression • in the heat of debate was misinterpreted into an approval of "poisoning the wells" at Canton, and a silly though most unfair

use was made of it both in the House and out of doors : but of the

arguments in Mr. GLADSTONE'S speech the Ministerial orators and journalists have been shy. Dr. LUSHINGTON went the whole length of the War party : he could find no fault whatever in the Minis- It pm asestairs ta als,,voto.paper are 271 and 261; but it was i•xplained lust nialit, „ow restscipt4.) tbbtio) it mistake of the 'fellers, the minority giveu in to the Speaker thanyteletital number.

- - .;;...,?` • .

tars, and was shocked by the atrocities of the Chinese. The Doctor long ago plunged chin-deep into the mire of Whiggery. ; he has been rewarded for his services with a lucriktive and not laborious Judgeship, and now gives his patrons the benefit of his position. Sir Joust HOBHOUSE said some clever things, but did not contribute much to the value of the debate. Sir' ROBERT PEEL, confident in the 'vantage-ground he occupied, was extremely dexterous in the use of his materials, and impressive in his warnings of not improbable disasters : a higher strain of moral feeling than is commonly discernible in Sir Rommr's speeches may be remarked in several passages—and especially is those which recommended mercy to the unwarlike Chinese, and reprobated the revengeful spirit, which will, we fear, be too appa,. rent in the approaching congress of the Wolf and the Lamb.

Lord PALsuntsrobes reply is praised in the Ministerial journals as possessing extraordinary merit. Its success appears to have been fully equal to its deserts ; for, however effective in the de- livery, the report in the newspapers gives the idea of a bald and flippant harangue, in which the main points of the question are slurred over, or dismissed with an idle sneer. He made one good hit, however : shortly before the close of his speech, he produced a letter signed by thirty London merchants, deprecating any such interference with the Government as might impair the vigour of the operations against China. The wishes of these gentle:nen, (among whom we recognize some of the principal opium-merchants and indemnity-claimants,) were of course decisive of the whole question : they touched the sympathies of the breeches-pocket, and were irresistible.