|
■W. E. Gladstone Speech:
WAR WITH CHINA—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
HC Deb . 08 April 1840. vol 53 cc749-837
Speech in the House of Commons (8 April 1840) against the First Opium War
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, had delivered a speech characterised by that ability and ingenuity for which he was distinguished; but he could not help remarking, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman had declined to support the motion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, yet upon two points, and those points of the most vital importance, the hon. and learned Gentleman had agreed with the sentiments which had been expressed on the Opposition side of the House. The first of those points was, that Captain Elliot ought to have been furnished with larger powers and more specific instructions; and the second was, that courts ought to have been established in China by her Majesty's Government having authority over the conduct of British subjects in that part of the world. The hon. and learned Gentleman added more particularly that such steps were necessary because the jealousy of the Chinese towards strangers was well founded. That jealousy had been increased by the great change which had taken place in 1833, by which the trade with China was opened. It had also been strengthened by the hon. and learned Gentleman, by the great increase which had taken place in the number of persons visiting and residing in China consequent on the passing of the Act of 1833, by the rapid growth of the opium trade subsequent to that period, by the greater daring of those who carried it on, and by the demand of a direct correspondence with the vice-regal authorities. All these circumstances showed that the Government ought to have sent out Captain Elliot as an accredited agent, and that they ought to have furnished him with ample powers to carry into effect the object which they had in view. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it strange that those who blamed the conduct of the Government in not furnishing Captain Elliot with more ample instructions should have taken no notice of the fact that the Duke of Wellington, during the six months he 801was in office had only written one additional despatch, and he had said that, in that despatch, the noble Duke had not blamed the conduct of Lord Napier. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he had read over three times the papers which had been laid on the Table of the House, but he would recommend him to peruse them again before he made such statements. In the despatch of the Duke of Wellington to Lord Napier, the noble Duke said— It is not by force and violence that his Majesty intends to establish a commercial intercourse between his subjects and China; but by the other conciliatory measures so strongly inculcated in all the instructions which you have received." ["Hear."] The hon. Gentleman cheered, but he would beg to remind him that no one had objected to the general tenor of the original instructions which had been given to Lord Napier. The part of the noble Lord's conduct which was blamed was that which directed Lord Napier to take up his residence at Canton, knowing the jealousy which the Chinese had of strangers. He thought that those who were so charitable to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and who were of opinion that there had been no want of instruction on his part might learn a lesson from the conduct of the Duke of Wellington, when they found that in the short time which he had held office he had digested the whole subject and formed a plan which, if the noble Lord opposite had been wise enough to adopt, would have prevented all the unfortunate transactions which had since taken place. The despatch which the noble Duke had written, and the plan which he had drawn up with such ability, would have been followed by the most ample instructions within a short period, but before those instructions could have been prepared, the noble Duke had retired from office. It had been truly observed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, that the only charge against the Government was a charge of omission. A son starved his father to death, but that was only a sin of omission. A rebellion took place, the magistrates were not on the spot, the military were not called out, the peace of the country was disturbed, and several lives were lost, but these were only sins of omission. All those disasters which the country had wit- 802nessed arose only from sins of omission, and such was the character of the omissions of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had not carried out the intentions of the Legislature, for the Act of 1838 authorised the Government to furnish the superintendent with powers even more stringent than those which had been formerly entrusted to the supercargoes. The noble Lord had, most improperly, omitted to comply with the provisions of that Act, and had most unwisely taken no notice of the recommendations of Sir G. Robinson, of Mr. Davis, or of the able document which had been prepared by the Duke of Wellington. Instead of complying with the provisions of that Act, or following the recommendations which he had received, the noble Lord had given one general rule —namely, to insist on the use of a new character in all communications with the Chinese, notwithstanding the Chinese had refused in the most positive terms to admit that character to be used. By pursuing that course, the noble Lord had violated the compact by which our trade was permitted by the Chinese government to be carried on, for the Chinese had always said, that they would have no diplomatic relations with foreigners. They had, in the most positive terms, refused to enter into such relations with any strangers trading to their shores, and yet, in spite of that refusal, what did the noble Lord do? He had desired the superintendent to aim at attaining a diplomatic character as a principal object, while he had refused to grant him the power necessary to control the British subjects within the dominions of China. The noble Lord had neglected to give the necessary powers and instructions to Captain Elliot, while he had ordered him to obtain that which the Chinese had always refused to concede. The next omission charged against the noble Lord was, that he had neglected to establish courts in China, and on this point the lion, and learned Gentleman (Mr. Charles Buller), had alluded to the course which his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke, had pursued in reference to the China Courts' Bill which had been brought forward by the Government. By the provisions of that bill, the court proposed to be established would have been invested not only with criminal and admiralty jurisdiction, but also with civil jurisdiction, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that his right hon. 803Friend had objected to the clause which gave a power of deportation. But was the opposition of his right hon. Friend a justification of the noble Lord? Did the noble Lord think that the powers which that bill would have conferred were right and necessary and essential for the prosperity of our China trade? If the noble Lord did not think that those powers were essential, then he could not object to the course which had been pursued by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke; but if, on the other hand, the noble Lord thought that those powers were necessary, why then, he would ask, had he not given those powers without coming down to that House and asking for the interference of Parliament. Why had he not given them by the authority of the Act to which he had before alluded? But the noble Lord had said, that his right hon. Friend had insisted on the clauses giving those powers being withdrawn from the bill; but what, he would ask, was the position of the House when that bill was under consideration? The House, at that time, had no information as to the actual state of affairs in China. The noble Lord had brought down a collection of extracts, carefully culled from the documents which had since been laid before the House, and in which there was no information as to the state of the opium trade or as to the determination of the Chinese Government to put it down. The noble Lord had kept all that information to himself, and had refused the House an opportunity of forming a sound decision on the subject. The noble Lord alone knew the necessity, if necessity there was, for those additional powers, for he alone was aware that the imperial and provincial Governments of China had issued their most strict edict against those who embarked in that trade. All that information, however, the noble Lord had carefully excluded from the papers which he had laid on the Table, and not one word was to be found in them from beginning to end having relation to opium. When, therefore, the House had no knowledge of the actual position of affairs, and when the noble Lord had perfect knowledge of the state of the opium trade, and of the determination of the Chinese Government to put it down—when there was nothing on the Table of the House but a garbled and most imperfect statement—were they to be told, that under such circumstances 804the objections of his right hon. Friend to the bill which had been brought forward was to be pleaded as a justification of the conduct of the noble Lord? If the noble Lord thought that order could not be maintained amongst British subjects residing in or trading to China without the superintendent possessing some such powers as those which would have been granted by the bill, and if Parliament refused to grant those powers, there was one course still open to the noble Lord—a course which he, of all men, seemed the most reluctant to adopt—if those powers were essential, and if the Legislature refused to grant them, it was still open for the noble Lord to resign the office which he held. But, instead of pursuing such a course, the noble Lord had acquiesced in the opinions of his right hon. Friend, and had withdrawn the bill altogether, and they must, therefore, judge of his conduct as if no such bill had ever been introduced. The noble Lord, alone, was responsible for not pressing for the erection of a court in China; and if it was argued that the noble Lord had incurred no such responsibility, then he would ask why, if the Government considered such a court essential, the bill had not been introduced in the following Session. It was said, that it would have been too late in the following Session to have introduced this measure again, and that it could not then have prevented the mischief which had since happened. But the noble Lord could not, in the following Session, have known that fact, and it certainly was his duty, if he considered the bill necessary, to have again brought it forward. As it appeared to him, however, the greatest omission with which the noble Lord was chargeable had relation to the opium trade, and on this part of the subject he wished the House to observe that there was a broad and marked distinction between that trade as carried on before September, 1836, and as carried on subsequent to that period. A report of the Committee of the House of Commons had referred to the former period, and he could imagine that in the lax state of morals which there prevailed both in this country and in China with respect to the smuggling of opium, that that Committee should have been unwilling to enter on the subject of the suppression of the opium trade, when it was supposed that the Chinese themselves were not in earnest 805in their desire to put it down. The quantity of opium raised and exported to China was, however, at that time, much less than it had subsequently been The trade had not then taken the enormous spring which it had since done; and besides there was at that time a power in the supercargoes enabling them to put a stop to the opium trade whenever they might see necessary to adopt such a course, and that power it was the intention of Parliament to continue by the Act of 1833. It was therefore a just charge against the noble Lord that no steps had been taken to carry out the intentions of Parliament when the Chinese had openly declared, and in the most positive terms, that they would no longer allow the trade in opium to be carried on. What were the facts in relation to this trade subsequent to the year 1836? Up to that time the Chinese had connived at the trade in opium, but he would call into court an imperial edict, ordering a stop to be put to that trade in the most strict and positive terms. In this case they were the judges in their own cause, and no one appeared on the part of the Chinese; but what was the opinion of Mr. King, an American merchant, who had written a work on the opium crisis? That gentleman said, that the connivance of the Chinese before 1836, was only a subaltern connivance, for all the respectable Chinese denied that any of the higher functionaries connived at the trade. It was only, as it appeared from the evidence of Mr. King, the connivance of the inferior officers of the Chinese Government, and he would ask whether there was any one of the second rate powers on the continent of Europe which was not perfectly aware of the corruption which prevailed amongst its Custom-house officers. But that was no reason for saying that the Government itself connived at the corruption of its officers, or at the contraband trade which was carried on in consequence, so that it was no justification of the opium trade to say that it was connived at by the inferior functionaries of China. Let them, however, look at the state of the trade subsequent to the year 1836. In September 1836, the Emperor of China issued an edict, commanding that all persons engaging in the purchase or sale of opium should be severely punished. That was not a hasty measure adopted on the moment without consider- 806ation, but on the contrary, it was an edict resolved on after mature deliberation, and which was promulgated in the most solemn and impressive manner, and if there was any want of proof of the sincerity of the intentions of the Chinese government to put down effectually the trade in opium, it was to be found in the fact that the Vice-president of the Sacrificial Court had been punished for the advice which he had given for its continuance. Another edict had subsequently been issued against foreigners engaged in the opium trade, and which commanded them to depart at once from the country. Why, then, had the noble Lord remained idle and taken no steps, when he heard that those edicts were issued? Captain Elliot had told him that the Emperor had issued the most strict edicts, commading all parties engaged in the opium trade to give over their traffic, but nothing however had been done. No one could blame the conduct of Captain Elliot, nor could the noble Lord now have anything to disavow as regarded that gentleman's conduct. Considering how hard a master the noble Lord had been— that he had acted the part of an Egyptian task master, commanding his officer "to make bricks without straw"—it was impossible for any one to visit with blame the conduct of Captain Elliot. Captain Elliot's errors were those of the noble Lord, while it would be difficult to show that his merits were ascribable to his instructions from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. On the 23rd of November Captain Elliot received notice of the intention entertained by the Chinese government with respect to the parties engaged in the smuggling of opium, and an edict was issued commanding the merchants to leave the country in half a month. The noble Lord was duly informed of this; and the consequence of these preparations on the part of the Chinese government was, that Captain Elliot came to the determination of resisting this removal of the smuggling merchants. Were they to be told after this that the course adopted by the noble Lord was the wise course of keeping wholly aloof, and not mixing himself up in any way in the opium trade, as had been put forward in the ingenious defence of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down? On the 12th of April 1837, Captain Elliot arrived in 807Canton. The Hong merchants demanded that the receiving ships should be made to depart from the coast. On the first of May the boats concerned in the opium trade were removed to Whampoa, and there the prohibition was effectually enforced. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard bad quoted a passage from the evidence of Mr. Lyndsay, a very respectable man, but largely concerned in the opium trade, in which he stated that the viceroy himself was concerned in the traffic. But even if he were, it was quite clear that the general spirit of the imperial government was most adverse to it. From that time collisions and scenes of violence and bloodshed were of two frequent occurrence, without, however, once moving the noble Lord from his state of complete imperturbability. In the months of July, August, and September, an imperial edict and others by the commissioner at Canton, ordered the removal of the ships engaged in the smuggling trade, and warned the English residents that the continuance of their trade with China was dependent upon their obedience to this injunction. All the edicts issued up to this time, together with the commands given to the merchants, were treated with indifference by the noble Lord. Captain Elliot suggested the propriety of sending out a commissioner to negotiate with the court of Pekin. But of this the noble Lord did not approve. These accounts, however, of bloody collisions and scenes of confusion came to the noble Lord's department year after year, yet the noble Lord never thought it necessary to make the slightest communication to Parliament. After all this, the noble Lord came down with that garbled statement upon which he founded the China Courts Bill. Now, the noble Lord at that period had every demonstration which he could have of the sincerity and earnestness of the Chinese government in relation to this matter. The noble Lord had not the slightest reason to suppose that Parliament would treat the subject with indifference, or be indisposed to legislate upon it. And whether Parliament was or was not disposed to do so, it was equally the noble Lord's bounden duty to introduce the subject to their consideration. Yet, the noble Lord, though lie received these despatches in May, 1838, took no step whatever in regard to them; and this, forsooth, was to be now advanced in his excuse—that because 808he had allowed matters to come to a head, and had suffered so much time to elapse, he could not, then, interfere without doing mischief. The Chinese government had been very hardly used in the course of this debate, and more particularly by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh. Now, the Chinese government had trusted, in the first instance, to Captain Elliot's statement—a statement which he must say, that he did not consider a very open or straightforward one, that— His Government had no knowledge of the existence of any but the legal trade, and that over an illegal trade he could exercise no power. If they were judging the conduct of Chinese, not of British officers, they would call that a miserable equivocation. No one could doubt that Captain Elliot was quite as well aware of the existence of the illicit as of the legal trace. But the tenour of the noble Lord's instructions was—"Don't confess that you know anything at all about it."
The passage he alluded to would be found in page 233. These were the words:— That my Government had no formal knowledge of the existence of any other but the regular trade of Canton, and that his Excellency must be sensible I could concern myself only with the duties I had due authority to perform. And in page 240 He has already signified to your Excellency, with truth and plainness, that his commission extends only to the regular trade with this empire; and further, that the existence of any other than this trade has never yet been submitted to the knowledge of his own gracious sovereign. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen were now satisfied. Was it to be expected after this that the Chinese government would continue to communicate with Captain Elliot, when he—the professed agent of the British Government—declared himself unable to keep her Majesty's subjects at Canton in obedience to the laws of the Chinese empire? Were they to waste time in fruitless negotiations, and decline to adopt other more cogent means of effecting the legitimate and praiseworthy object which they had in view? On the 20th of November, 1837, another edict was issued, distinctly threatening the stoppage of the British trade if the receiving 809ships were not dismissed, and the edict was repeated on the 22nd of December, 1837, and the 19th of February, 1838. He entered into these details to show with what unwearied and exemplary patience the Chinese government had acted in this matter, and what numerous warnings they gave; without those warnings, however, receiving the slightest notice on the part of the noble Lord. Was he to be told, that because the noble Lord had been a meddler in one part of the world, this was to be held as an excuse for his doing nothing in another part? The noble Lord had shown that there were some things which he was ready enough to do and those which he did were frequently found as mischievous as those which he did not do. The noble Lord certainly had exerted himself in one particular. He had done his best to get Captain Elliot to obtain from the commissioner at Canton the substitution, instead of the word Pin, of some term less objectionable. Here was an endeavour, notwithstanding Captain Elliot's confessed inability to put an end effectually to smuggling, to obtain for him a recognition in his diplomatic character. In 1838 the Chinese government began to be of opinion that some more stringent means must be adopted. In the month of April a Chinese was executed without the walls, as an ignominious example, and it was stated that he was— So punished on account of the intercourse which he had held with the traitorous barbarians, and of his dealing in Sycee silver. This appalling incident was evidently designed for the instruction and intimidation of the European residents engaged in the smuggling trade. But the noble Lord was no more moved by this event than he was before. During the whole of that year many seizures of opium were made, and many bloody encounters took place. Shortly afterwards occurred the affair of Mr. Innes. Captain Elliot at last assumed an active position, stopped the trade in the river, and declared that it was a lawless traffic, and so far met the demand of the Chinese government. With this they appeared to be content for a time. But, so long as the receiving ships were not removed, the Chinese government could have no security that their intentions would be faithfully carried into effect. It was with great regret that he found Captain Elliot at last setting his 810face deliberately against the removal, and supported in this course by the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, had told them that he deplored the prevalence of the prohibited opium trade as much as any hon. Member at their side of the House could. But what was the value of such formal declarations, when the agent of the Government, (for such Captain Elliot was) exhibited himself at Canton, as the supporter of the British merchants engaged in the contraband trade, and the opponent of the Chinese government in their attempt to remove the offending ships? On the 12th of September, 1838, an attempt was made to execute a native Chinese in the very square of the factories. An edict was directed to the foreigners resident at Canton, totally contrary to the practice of the Chinese government, in which they were distinctly charged to send off the receiving ships, and were informed that a new law would be presently sent down from the imperial government, and carried faithfully into execution. Had he not a right, therefore, to assume it was an indisputable fact, that the Chinese government had adopted every means, during a period of two years and a half—that both imperial and provincial governments had used every lawful endeavour to stop the opium trade, and resorted to every proper means of making their intentions known to the British Government? Yet they had been treated with contempt and neglect—with the same contempt by the noble Lord at home as by the British superintendent at Canton. At length, in the month of November, the last step was taken, and a native was actually strangled in the square of the factories. This was interpreted as a gross and meditated insult to the flag of those who had been themselves, in effect, the cause of the death of that unhappy man. Let them mark the conduct of Captain Elliot. He knew that the commissioner was coming, and in answer to a communication which he received from him, he stated that he should consider himself bound to protect, not only British persons, but British property. The meaning of this was, of course, that he would resist every attempt made by the Chinese to carry into effect the intentions of the imperial government. Captain Elliot described this measure taken by the Chinese government as sudden and violent. Why, it had proceeded by regular 811gradation. For two years and a half, the Chinese government were continually remonstrating, continually announcing their firm determination to suppress the trade, though during all that time not the slightest notice was taken of these remonstrances by her Majesty's Government. They were told that the Chinese ought not to have taken possession of the person of the British residents at Canton. This was a subject upon which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, had become very indignant, and demanded what proof the Chinese officers had of these individuals being concerned in the prohibited traffic. What proof? Why, it was a matter of universal knowledge. The seizure of the opium was recorded regularly in a printed form at Canton. Captain Elliot had no power to arraign and judge those engaged in the opium trade. On the other hand, the Chinese had no power to try them. There were no means, therefore, of legally establishing the guilt of these parties. Yet they were to be told, that it was matter of complaint against the Chinese government, that they should have seized their persons. The Chinese government had acted in accordance with their fixed determination, to put a stop to the opium smuggling. Had they not a strict moral right to put a stop to it? Was it not mere mockery to affect—to pretend indignation as to the pernicious consequences of the opium trade, and yet exhaust all the armoury of ingenuity and eloquence to prove that the Chinese government were not justified in taking effectual means for crushing that trade? Her Majesty's Government would have unquestionably evinced a more sincere desire to discharge their duty satisfactorily had they manfully encouraged those efforts of the Chinese government, instead of systematically and deliberately taking measures to defeat those efforts. Another theme of the indignant denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, that that the Chinese should have indiscriminately confined the innocent with the guilty. He owned, that when the news of this transaction first reached him, he did think it a cruel and monstrous act. But from further and more accurate information, he found that the whole British community, almost to a man, bad been engaged in that illegal traffic. What were the facts? 200 persons had been confined. Had the right hon. Gentleman inquired how many 812were innocent, and how many were guilty? Did he suppose that five out of the 200 were innocent? If not, what of his charge? The circumstances being so notorious, the guilt being so undeniable, the Chinese government were justified in acting against the entire community, the more especially, because there was no possibility of fixing the guilt upon individuals. What did Mr. King say of the state of affairs at Canton? In the month of August, 1838, Mr. King stated, that he proposed a pledge to the foreign merchants resident at Canton, which went to bind them not to take any further part in the opium trade. Mr. King proposed this pledge to the merchants for signature; and what did the House think was the reply which the press at Canton gave to his proposition? The press replied, that no merchant could give this pledge, as they were one and all more or less interested in the sale of the drug. And yet, notwithstanding all this, the right hon. Gentleman opposite came forward, and with all his powers of eloquence, endeavoured to move the indignation of the House against the Chinese government, because in its measures of repression it had confounded the guilty with the innocent, though it was notorious that in that country the legitimate and illegitimate trade was conducted by the same hands, and was centred in the same houses. He thought that it was of importance to show that the Government of China, before it had resorted to violent measures to suppress the opium trade, had exhibited great moderation in the measures which it had adopted; and that by appeals to individuals and their agents, by serious warnings, by the constant confiscation of the opium found in the possession of natives, and in a word, by every means that could be devised, it had attempted to prove the sincerity of its endeavours to put an end to that illegal traffic. He thought that the noble Lord ought to have cooperated, as far as he could, with the Government of China, when the sincerity of its endeavours was proved to him. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asserted, that it was quite impossible for us to put down the opium trade in China ourselves. Admitting that to be the fact, still we might have shown a desire to co-operate with the Government of China; and if we had done so, we should have put down the traffic to a great extent, though we might not hare succeeded in abolishing it. 813We might have sent away the receiving ships—we might have refused them the protection of our flag. "But then," said the right hon. Gentleman opposite, "we should have created piracy, and should have converted the present illicit traffic into something much worse." Why, the trade in opium had already generated piracy not only on the river, but also all along the coast of China. But he was convinced in his own mind that if we had sent away the receiving ships, that measure would have produced other and very different measures on the part of the Chinese. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had also asked— Shall we establish at our own expense a a preventive service on the coast of China to put down the smuggling of opium into that country! Now to that question he would give an answer by asking another, and that was— Did the right hon. Gentleman opposite know that the opium smuggled into China came exclusively from British ports—that was, from Bengal, and through Bombay! If that were the fact—and he defied the right hon. Gentleman to gainsay it—then we required no preventive service to put down this illegal traffic. We had only to stop the sailing of the opium vessels; and it was matter of certainty, that if we bad stopped the exportation of opium from Bengal, and broken up the depot at Lintin, and had checked the growth of it in Malwa, and had put a moral stigma upon it, we should have greatly crippled, if, indeed, we had not entirely extinguished, the trade in it. He did not mean to blame the noble Lord for not having done this by means of a despatch—it was impossible that he could have so done it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had told them, and told them very properly, that an order of that kind could not execute itself. Undoubtedly it could not. We knew that the interference of Parliament would have been necessary; but we also knew that the opium trade had been denounced in the strongest terms by the Chinese authorities—that it had been the cause of bloodshed—and that it had led to many other mischievous and dangerous results; and, such being the case, the noble Lord would only have had to declare the difficulties that were before him to establish the necessity for the interference of the Legislature. Then, said the right 814hon. Gentleman—"Our Sovereign has been insulted in the person of her representative." But how did the right hon. Gentleman opposite show that Captain Elliot was the representative of his Sovereign? Was he the representative of his Sovereign because he was unable to control her subjects, or because the Chinese authorities had formally acknowledged him as such? It was clear, from several passages in this blue book, which he would not weary the House with reading, that the Chinese authorities had never formally acknowledged Captain Elliot as the representative of the Sovereign of this country, and that they had only recognized him as a person appointed to reside at Canton to preserve order in the regulation of the trade, and in no other character whatsoever. And here he must be permitted to say one word in vindication, or rather in palliation, of the conduct pursued by Captain Elliot, but certainly not in vindication or palliation either, of her Majesty's Government in this country. Captain Elliot was placed in a situation in which he could not, from want of powers, fulfil the task that was imposed upon him. In the discharge of his duty he had throughout shown great courage, and in some part of it great tact and discretion. But the fact was, that whenever he showed a disposition to check the trade in opium, he was regularly discouraged by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department. Nay, more, whenever Captain Elliot implored the noble Lord to interfere either one way or the other, and to prepare measures either for the suppression or for the legalization of the trade, he was met by the noble Lord with a total and contemptuous silence—with an utter and unpardonable neglect of all his suggestions, quite incompatible with the doctrine now for the first time advanced, that it was inconsistent with the confidence necessarily reposed in an agent at such a distance from head-quarters to trouble him with minute and manifold instructions. Was it not quite evident, that before the principle of the right hon. Gentleman opposite could tell against multiplying instructions to a distant agent, it must tell still more strongly in favour of strengthening and multiplying his powers? Now, Captain Elliot, in the course of the spring of last year, had completely identified himself with the contraband traffic in opium. He would not weary the House with reading passages out of the blue book 815to prove it; for he was sure that no one who had paid the slightest attention to these despatches would venture to dispute it. It was stated therein that Captain Elliot declared to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, on the 13th of March, 1839, that he had made up his mind to direct British subjects to resist by force of arms any attacks that might be made by the Chinese government upon the opium vessels at Lintin. The noble Lord had recognized that act of Captain Elliot. As the noble Lord had refused to interfere with the Chinese Government when there was yet time for interference, and as by his refusal he had placed Captain Elliot in a situation of difficulty, the noble Lord might be right in not disavowing the acts which he had compelled Captain Elliot, as his agent, to take; but the noble Lord could not be allowed to acquit himself of his responsibility for those acts, if it were a necessary consequence of his policy, as undeniably it was, that on the 13th of March, 1839, Captain Elliot declared it to be his intention to defend, not only the persons of British subjects, but also the property which they had engaged in these smuggling transactions. Was the House of Commons, he would ask, to be told that the present motion had no bearing upon the war now about to commence—that it was brought forward for mere party purposes—and that it had no reference whatever to the real merits of the case? If the House should vote that this war was owing to a want of foresight on the part of her Majesty's Government, and to the neglect of the noble Lord to forward Captain Elliot instructions how he was to proceed against the growing evils of the traffic in opium, could any one doubt that it would be equivalent to its saying that there were evils in the opium trade which required to be remedied, and that, in shifting the responsibility of the war from the Chinese to the British Government, it imposed on itself the necessity of resorting to negotiation, and of making reparation for our past injustice before we resorted to violent measures for redress? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that no person hitherto had denounced this war. Now, if he had heard his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke correctly, he had denounced the war as one in which success could produce no honour, and in which failure must produce 816indelible disgrace. Besides, if he was not mistaken, he had heard his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter go the length of saying, that it was doubtful whether on purely technical principles you were justified in excepting to the seizure of the opium, and to the mode of its seizure by the Chinese government. If he could bring himself to think that this motion would have no effect upon the war now in contemplation, he for one should care little about its success. With respect to the charge that such motions as the present were only made for party purposes, he was of opinion that it was an useful maxim not to attend to any allegations of party motives. They were weapons which were used daily by both sides; they were very useful to excite cheers—but than such cheers nothing could be more worthless. There were real merits in this case, for the great principles of justice were involved in this war. "You will be called upon," said Mr. Gladstone, addressing himself to the Ministers—"you will be called upon, even if you escape from condemnation on this motion, to show cause for your present intention of making war upon China. I do not mean to say that you ought not to send out an armament against China. Far from it. We have placed ourselves under your auspices in a position so unfavourable, that it is a matter of certainty that we cannot even demand terms of equity without a display of force. But we are going to exact reparation for insult, and compensation for confiscation which we allege ourselves to have suffered. If that be so, then I tell you that you are bound to show to us and to the world what the insult is for which we are to demand reparation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken to us of the cruel murder which he says the Chinese committed upon a boat's crew which they captured. Now, I beg leave to remind him that in one of his despatches Captain Elliot alleges that this was an act committed by pirates, and not by Chinese authorities. It is only in his last despatch that Captain Elliot says that his conviction now is that he was wrong in that allegation. Now, I must say, that all the conduct of the Chinese authorities militates against all this recent conviction of Captain Elliot. They had had not only the opportunity, but also the power, of putting to death other British subjects than the three Lascars whom they had captured, 817and if their object had been to inflict terror, the murder of the former would have answered their object better than the murder of the latter. Even in the case of the Lascars, the Chinese authorities had never been asked for explanation; and before explanation is asked, are we to be told that this outrage is a sufficient cause of war? But, says the right hon. Gentleman opposite, "The Chinese have poisoned their wells, and such a step would be certain to lead to retaliation and vengeance on the part of our sailors, who get their water from them." Now, as Captain Elliot declared to the Chinese authorities that he had no formal knowledge of what would be the orders of his own government when it heard of these transactions, and as he refused to give a formal injunction for the abandonment of the trade in opium, it appears to me that the Chinese were justified in saying, "We have no other alternative than to expel these smugglers from China," and they offered in consequence to Captain Elliot expulsion on the one hand, or legal traffic in the usual way on the other. Captain Elliot refused both. He would not let the shipping go up to Whampoa. Every objection that could be made was made by Captain Elliot to the renewal of the legal trade. The Chinese were anxious for the renewal of it; but "No," said Captain Elliot," We will go to Lintin, we will establish ourselves there, we will maintain our right to procure provisions there, and at Lintin we will remain till more favourable circumstances arise." Now will the House consider what this language really amounted to? It was a claim on the part of the British merchants to go to the very focus of smuggling; and this afforded a suspicion—a seemingly well-founded suspicion—to the Chinese, that it was their intention that the opium trade should be resumed there. The Chinese had no armament ready wherewith to expel us from Lintin. They therefore said, "We will resort to another mode of bringing you to reason. We will expel you from our shores by refusing you provisions," and then of course they poisoned the wells. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches). I am ready to meet those cheers. I understand what they mean. I have not asserted—I do not mean to assert—that the Chinese actually poisoned their wells. All I mean to say is, that it was alleged that they had 818poisoned their wells. They gave you notice to abandon your contraband trade. When they found that you would not, they had a right to drive you from their coasts on account of your obstinacy in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic. You allowed your agent to aid and abet those who were concerned in carrying on that trade, and I do not know how it can be urged as a crime against the Chinese that they refused provisions to those who re fused obedience to their laws whilst residing within their territories. I am not competent to judge how long this war may last, or how protracted may be its operations, but this I can say, that a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I have not read of. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke last night in eloquent terms of the British flag waving in glory at Canton, and of the animating effects produced on the minds of our sailors by the knowledge, that in no country under heaven was it permitted to be insulted. We all know the animating effects which have been produced in the minds of British subjects on many critical occasions when that flag has been unfurled in the battle-field. But how comes it to pass that the sight of that flag always raises the spirit of Englishmen? It is because it has always been associated with the cause of justice, with opposition to oppression, with respect for national rights, with honourable commercial enterprize, but now, under the auspices of the noble Lord, that flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic, and if it were never to be hoisted except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror, and should never again feel our hearts thrill, as they now thrill with emotion, when it floats proudly and magnificently on the breeze. No, I am sure that her Majesty's Government will never upon this motion, persuade the House to abet this unjust and iniquitous war. I have not scrupled to denounce the traffic in opium in the strongest terms—I have not scrupled to denounce the war with equal indignation; but supposing that we pronounce no opinion upon the traffic, and no condemnation upon the war, the charge against the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department is nevertheless equally complete. Whether the opium trade be 819right or be wrong—whether we ought to have continued, or whether we ought to have negatived it—the noble Lord has been equally neglectful of his duty. The circumstances which were represented to the noble Lord in July, 1837, the circumstances which were afterwards brought to his knowledge in May, 1838, and the circumstances which he learned in April, 1839, were all of them circumstances which called upon him for more powerful interference, no matter what the object of that interference was. I have already expressed my opinion that the interference of the noble Lord should have been for the suppression of the trade in opium, and that the war was not justified by any excesses committed on the part of the Chinese. I have already slated, that although the Chinese were undoubtedly guilty of much absurd phraseology, of no little ostentatious pride, and of some excess, justice, in my opinion, is with them, and, that whilst they, the Pagans, and semi-civilized barbarians, have it, we, the enlightened and civilized Christians, are pursuing objects at variance both with justice, and with religion. I am, however, most particularly anxious to call the attention of the House to this point—that, though I do not evade either the question pf the opium trade, or the question of the war, I think the merits of the noble Lord, at the head of the Foreign-office rest on a very, different footing. In whatever, sense the noble Lord ought to, have interfered, one thing is clear, that he ought to have interfered with spirit and effect. It was not his duty to have allowed the contraband trade in opium to have gone on to the extent which it reached. If the noble Lord had ever read those papers—yes, I repeat, if the noble Lord had ever read those dispatches—for it is to me matter of doubt, whether he has read them. Gentlemen may cheer, but I will never believe the noble Lord has read them, till I hear him make with his own lips a declaration to that effect. Yes, I want to hear that declaration from himself. The noble Lord has dope all in his power to keep us in the dark with respect to them, certainly, and now, when at last he condescends to give us them, he gives us them in one vast, rude, and undigested chaos which the wit of man is incapable of comprehending. I therefore, think it more charitable to suppose that the noble Lord has Sever read those dispatches, than to sup- 820pose that, having read them, he was so ignorant of his duty as to make no application to Parliament upon this subject. Be the trade in opium what it may—be it right, or be it wrong, we are now called on give an assent to a war caused by the indolence and apathy of the noble Lord. The rupture was caused, in the first instance by his not sending out sufficient instructions on the subject of the opium trade to Captain Elliot. It was continued in the next by the continuance of our merchants to smuggle opium into China, and by the determination of Mr. Innes, and others to go up the river in prosecution of their trade. It was further continued by the murder of a Chinese on shore by British subjects—a murder which Captain Elliot could not punish, nor yet prevent, from his want of control over British subjects in the waters of China. It was further continued by the passage of the Thomas Coutts up to Canton, an occurrence which Captain Elliot would have had power to prevent, if the noble Lord had attended to his pressing applications. Be the trade or be the war what it may, I will never flinch from the assertion which, I have already made, that the noble Lord is chargeable for the results of both. On his head, and on that of his colleagues, that responsibility must exclusively rest, unless the House shall think fit to negative the motion of my right hon. Friend by its vote on this occasion, and if it does, it will become a voluntary participator in that great and awful responsibility.
sauce:WAR WITH CHINA—ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 8 April 1840) (parliament.uk)
|