TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE OPIUM WAR.

" ft is not by force and violence that his Arajestn intends to establish a com- mercial intercourse beetween his subjects and China."—WELTANarou to Lord Namr:n.

TUE Government writers are labouring strenuously to give a respectable colour to the war with China. It is " washing the black- amoor white :" do what they can—gloss it over as they may— THE OPIUM WAR is the name by which history will hand it down.

We say " the war" with China, for it is either a war or worse. Without troubling themselves to go through the obsolete cere- monial of a message to Parliament, the Ministers have sent a war

expedition to China. Lord PALMERSTON, indeed, declares that no-

thing more is meant than to make " a communication" to the Chinese Government : but this really means, considering the ten regiments and ten ships of war, that the Chinese are to be attacked without a formal declaration of' war. If it is not a formal declara- tion of war, it is a barbarous outrage without plea or notice. Lord

PALMERSTON'S attempt to describe this costly armament as a mes-

sage, merely because there has been no formal declaration of war, is an obvious and unworthy quibble, for the purpose of excusing the Government for having involved the country in a war without consulting Parliament.

The tone of the Government press sufficiently shows that its masters know that they have got us into a war. Its incessant aitn

is to fluniliarize the minds of its readers with a state of war. The Morning,. Chronicle (plagiarizing from the chorus of the King's

speeches of' the good old times of GEORGE the Third) talks in heroics of " an honourabh,, just, and necessary war ;" and again, but yesterday, speaks of Wr0110'S which demand " the redress and reparation which war and blood' clone can obtain." The Examiner

sneers at the " one-sided humanity" of' those who remo»strate agninst the Chinese war. The same journal rakes up events which occurred in 1749 and 1780, in order to excite a hatred of the whole Chinese nation. The Globe rings the changes upon " the Tartar dynasty," in order to lend to the Opium crusade the appearance of an attempt to rescue the Chinese from foreign conquerors. Every trick, direct or indirect, is called into play in order to stimulate John Ban pugnacity. And all this, be it observed, by the very writer; sho, having for years been in the habit of resting the claims of' their party to public support, in a great measure on their being able to preserve peace, " which the Tories, were they in

power, could not do for a fortnight," jump Jim Crow at a moment's warnisg, sneer at the " pusillanimity " of the Duke of WELLING- TON, and extol the valorous PALMERSTON for his "honourable, just, and necessary war."

The Government writers are forced to sad shifts to lacquer over this foul business. The first part of their argument is, that the Chinese Government, having connived at the opium-trade, had no right to put a stop to it ; the second, that the British Government did not interfere to protect the opium-trade. If the British Go- vernment did not interfere to protect the opium-trade and traders, how comes it that the British Government has been involved in a quarrel with the Chinese Government ? It' the Chinese Govern- ment had virtually tolerated the opium-thick, and therefore lost

its right to put a stop to it, why so chary of admitting, that the British C.:averment has got into this squabble by supporting the

British traders in opium ? The general rule is that contradictory statements imply the falsehood of one of them: in the present ease, the fitIsehood of both is transparent. The Chinese Government has as good a right to prevent the importation of opium into China as the British Government has to prevent the importation of corn into Britain; and the Chinese Governtnent has quarrelled with the Bri- tish, because the latter has been aiding and abetting the opium-

smugglers. It is not, however, sheer stupidity that has occasioned the self-contradiction of the Alinisterial scribes. Their masters have got the country into this war by gross neglect and incapa- city ; and they now NViS11 to escape the popular obloquy which sooner or later must attach to the authors of TILE OPIUM WAR. They expected, we verily believe, to cover their mismanagement of British relations with China by getting credit for ''an act of vigour." But they mistook ;he public mind, and are now striving to get up a sentiment as warlike as their own rash proceedings. At the risk of being written down by the Morning Chronicle in its catalogue of those who " allow themselves to be led away by the cant of affected humanity," we must enter on record our opinion that no such unjust, unnecessary, and dishonourable war, has been commenced by any set of rulers in this country—at least since that which about a century ago was undertaken against Spain for insist- ing upon excluding British commerce front 'her American posses- sions, and punishing severely the half-smu6sg1ers, half-pirates, caught by herguarda-eostas—as that into which Lord PALMERSTON has now plunged us, without having the decency to go through the form of

sending a message to Parliament beforehand. In the first place, then, we have no right to inquire what are the motives which have induced the Chinese to put a final stop to the opium-trade. Great stress is laid upon their " hypocrisy" in

* The Globe attributes the non-intercourse policy of China to "the Tartar dynasty," and repeats again and again that "the native rulers of China en- couraged commerce." The National MIA can tell how much it cost us to restore the Bourbons to the throne of France : how much will it cost to restore " the native riders" of China—supposing we can find them out ? Yet if there be truth in what the Globe says, nothing short of this can serve oar turn. professing to act upon purely moral considerations, when in reality their object was to prevent the drainage of slicee silver. It does not necessarily follow because the Chinese temperance-advo- eates dwell also upon the economical view of the question, that the moral one is a mere pretence. A country in which the legis- lation regarding beer-shops mid gin-palaces occupies so large a portion of Parliamentary attention, has no right to affect incredu- lity when another nation directs against opium-smoking the same weapons which themselves aim at tippling. It is possible that the Chinese " tee-totallers" may for a time have got the ear of the Monarch. But, even admitting that regard for public morality has as little to do with the anti-opium edicts of China as with the beer-bills of the British Parliament—admitting that fear of a derangement of the currency by an excessive export of bullion, and a dread of concealed projects of conquest on the part of the British, be the actuating motives of the Chinese Government —this circumstance cannot of itselfinvalidate their right to do what they have done. It may be bad political economy to dream of keeping the currency in a sound condition by restrictions on com- merce ; but if ignorance of the true principles of political economy affords good grounds for declaring war against a nation, who is safe ? And if an excessive trading jealousy of foreigners, leading to ludicrously inadequate provisions to guard against the danger, be a crime, there is not a state in Europe but is as guilty as China. The real question is, not what are the motives of the Chinese, but what have they done ? Have they done any thing to us that constitutes a criminal act according to the law of nations ? And here let us remark, that in appealing to the law of nations, the na- tions of Islam and the Chinese are not amenable to the somewhat obscure and fluctuating body of consuetudinary law which bears that name in Christendom. There are some broad and leading principles which we are entitled (if we can) to enforce upon all nations, because without their observance anarchy must prevail. But these are matters of etiquette and arrangement, which have been mutually conceded by the nations of Europe ; which it may be desirable to have conceded by the nations of Asia, but which have not yet been conceded by them; and which for this reason, and because they are not indispensable, we are not entitled to im- pose upon them by force and riolenee. For example, it is custom- ary for European powers to have permanent diplomatic residents at each other's seats of' government, invested with the sacred cha- racter of ambassador. The Chinese Government only recognizes the ambassadorial character in an envoy for a specific purpose, and refuses to extend its protection to him should he remain in the country after his mission is completed. Being fairly warned that such is the practice of China, it is no just ground of war that China relitscs to abandon its ancient custom in order to adopt ours.

Keeping this distinction in view, let us examine the relative position of China and Great Britain. The Chinese Government refuses to allow foreigners to resort to more than one commercial station in its dominions, and declares that all traffic in one ar- ticle—opium—is forbidden. This may be very good or very bad policy on the part of the Chinese, but it is a policy which they have a right to enforce. The British Government has respected the Rus-ian prohibition of intercourse with the coast of Circassia, although the Russian sovereignty over that country is more than questionable. The policy of European nations forbids entirely, or in part, the resort of foreign traders to their colonies. Japan excludes every nation but the Dutch ; the ruler of Paraguay excludes every nation. There is nothing unprecedented or criminal, according to the dictates of international law, in the Chinese Government's restriction of foreign commerce to the port of Canton, and in its prohibition of the importation of

opium. And yet the Globe insinuates, that " the systematic denial of the common rights of civilized nations, and the confine- ment of access within the narrowest limits and most vexatious re- strictions," is a good ground of quarrel with "the Tartar dynasty." Ilowmuchsocver Chinese customs may differ from ours, is there one of them of which the strictest enforcement by the Chiuese is a good rasa, belli? That is the true question : and the whole aim of the Min:sterial press is to excite such a prejudice against Chinese customs as may lead the people of this country to let the war go on. Either this shameful war must go on, or Ministers may have to go out : hence the diligence of the Ministerial press in stimulating the people to such hatred of the Chinese as should make them overlook the injustice of THE OPIUM WAIL But we are told by the Chronicle, that "the opium-trade had been for many years carried on with tin, direct connivance, of the Chinese authorities." We admit that, if through weakness or indolence the central government allows its delegates in distant provinces for a series es ysars to wink at infractions of the law of the empire, it were gross iejustice. to punish by confiscation foreigners whom this connivance had tempted to engage in the traffic. It would, however, be a flital principle to establish, that the weakness and indolence of one ruler confer a prescriptive right to resist the more efficient government of a vigorous successor. All that the foreigners can ask, is due warning before the rigorous laws which have slumbered are again enfbreed. This warning was given by the Chinese autho- rities, again and again. If, in fool-hardy disbelief that more ener- getic hands had grasped the helm, the tolerated smugglers waited till the blow fell, they have none to blame but themselves. Here, however, a totally different question arises,—namely, that of com- pensation to the dealers who gave up their property " for the use of her Majesty's Government." We have no space to discuss that question now, but must say that the inclination of our opinion is,

that justice to the British merchants, as well as to the Chinese nation, demands that the compensation should be made, if at all, by the Government which has been in the wrong throughout this affair, not less in dealing with its own subjects than with the foreign nation.

Again we are told, that not only the opium-traders, but all Bri- tish traders, and the representative of the British Government, suffered. As for the " representative of the British Government," at no time has the Chinese Government recognized such a charac- ter ; and in this non-recognition both Captain ELLIOT and his employers had acquiesced. It is clear from the "Correspondence relating to china," laid on the table of the Douse of Commons, that the Chinese did not recognize Captain ELLIOT in a diplo- matic capacity, and that he was aware they did not. In acting towards him as the head, it may be, but still in their eyes as one of the merchants, we have no right to infer that the Chinese autho- rities contemplated an insult to the British Government.* These are the points which are really essential. The style of language habitually adopted by the Chinese when speaking of foreigners, has nothing to do with the question. It may be that " barbarian" is the exact counterpart of the word they apply to foreigners; but it does not follow that they attach the same dis- logistic association that we do; or if they do, are they not rather to be laughed at than punished for their childishness ? The fact that the Chinese have one criminal law for natives and another for foreigners, has just as little to do with the question. The most civilized nations have made a similar distinction. Nay, the distinc- tion may be plausibly defended upon the grounds of abstract reason. The object of punishment is to deter ; and what is sufficient to deter permanent residents in a country, may be inadequate to deter tran- sient visitors. But, apart from these considerations, foreigners know that the distincticn is made; they cannot say that they are led blindfold into the danger.

Lastly, the various hostile acts which have been perpetrated on both sides, since the transactions upon Which the determination of who is in the right and who in the wrong depends, have nothing to do with the question. In all quarrels, the question is, who struck the first blow ; and in the present, whether it was by English or Chinese, that blow was struck before the irregular hostilities re- ferred to commenced.

We shall be told that DO nation can allow itself to be insulted, with impunity. Admitted : but the nation has not yet been in- sulted. The existing Government may have been insulted; but until the nation, by sauctioning the policy of that Government, puts itself in the Government's position, the nation is not insulted. That is the very question which now lies before the nation for its decision : will it, by approving of what the Government has done, make this Chinese quarrel its own, and incur the necessity of fighting it out ? Or will it say to the Government, you have be- trayed, by your conduct in this matter, such total want of prin- ciple and common sense, that we can neither become responsible for your actions nor longer intrust to you the reins of' government? The sacrifice of the blunderers enables the country without dis- honour to enter upon a new course of actions If the Emperor of China should discover that Commissioner Lis had betrayed the national interests by gross misbehaviour to England, his Celestial Majesty would deprive that faulty public servant of his " peacock's tail, with two eyes,' and England would be satisfied. Are we to go on with this abominable war merely for the purpose of sparing the Lords PALMERSTON, MELBOURNE, and NORMANBY, their pea- cocks' feathers ?

To what end do we dwell upon these topics ? Not to prevent the war with China, but if possible to stop it. Not to stir up the Douse of Commons to discharge its duty : to hope any thing front these political Sybarites would be weakness below contempt/ We dwell upon them in the hope, that a facile and deluded, but not altogether dishonest nation, may at last be roused to a sense of the wickedness into which it is now being led. The more the sub- ject is examined, the mac clearly will it appear that there is no- thing like a shadow of justification for a war that, besides dis- honour to ourselves and its immense cost, threatens the total de- struction of British intercourse with the most numerous, the most inoffimsive, the most industrious, and the most commercial nation in the world.

* See reprint from the Colonial Gazette, page 293.