440 NEW PARLIAMENT—AMENDMENT TO THE ADDRESS CARRIED. [1841. expresssd his regret that the Speech had been so framed as to be liable to misconstruction in the eyes of the country; that its recommendations appeared to be the recommendations of the Crown, and not of the ministers who constitutionally advised the Crown. Lord John Russell answered, that he thought it was generally understood that the Speech from the throne was the Speech of ministers; the Speech was the result of the advice of ministers, and ministers alone were responsible for it. M. Guizot shrewdly observes, that with the sagacity of party spirit the adversaries of sir Robert Peel estimated more accurately than perhaps he did himself the difficulties which awaited him. "Retiring with every possible advantage, the Whigs charged sir Robert Peel to repair their faults, and to perform their promises."* In the House of Commons an Amendment to the Address was moved by Mr. Stuart Wortley, to the effect that the public expenditure having for several years exceeded the annual income, the House was convinced of the necessity of adopting measures for the purpose of remedying so great an evil; that it was the duty of the House humbly to submit to her Majesty that it was essential to the satisfactory results of their deliberations in reference to the subjects to which their attention had been especially directed, and other matters of public concern, "that your Majesty's government should possess the confidence of this House and of the country; and respectfully to represent to your Majesty that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of your Majesty." The debate on the Address was continued four nights. The speeches by the leaders of the two parties, sir Robert Peel and lord John Russell, were necessarily the most important. Sir Robert Peel, in concluding his address, said "If I accept office, it shall be by walking in the open light and in the direct paths of the constitution. If I exercise power, it shall be upon my conception-perhaps imperfect—perhaps mistaken-but my sincere conception of public duty. That power I will not hold unless I can hold it consistently with the maintenance of my own opinions, and that power I will relinquish the moment I am satisfied that I am not supported in the maintenance of them by the confidence of the House and of the people of this country."+ The conclusion of lord John Russell's speech was equally emphatic: "I have only to express my conviction, that if this country is governed by enlarged and liberal counsels, its power and might will spread and increase, its influence will become greater and greater; that liberal principles will prevail, and civilization will be spread to all parts of the globe; that you will bless millions by your dominion and mankind by your example." On the 27th of August the House divided on Mr. Wortley's Amendment, when in a House of six hundred and twenty-nine members the government was in a minority of ninetyIn the House of Lords, where an Amendment to the Address, similar to that of the Commons, had been proposed by the earl of Ripon, the majority against ministers was seventy-two. Her Majesty's answer to the amended Address of the House of Commons conveyed the only decision which could be made by a constitutional sovereign. "Ever one. Guizot, "Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel," p. 91. + Hansard, vol. lix. col. 429. Ibid., vol. lix. col. 449. 1841.] RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 441 anxious to listen to the advice of the Parliament, I will take immediate measures for the formation of a new administration." The resignation of ministers was announced in both Houses on the 30th of August. He The biographer of sir Robert Peel has said, "Never perhaps had a first minister united at his accession so many elements and guarantees of a safe and strong government. But he was called on to perform the most difficult of tasks-a task essentially incoherent and contradictory. was obliged to be at once a Conservative and a Reformer, and to carry along with him, in this double course, a majority incoherent in itself, and swayed, in reality, by immoveable and untractable interests, prejudices, and passions."* Sir Robert Peel has given his own testimony to the difficulties which beset his path at the very onset of his attempts as a commercial reformer. One of his first acts was to propose to his colleagues a material change in the Corn-Law of 1828. He had also to propose a removal of the prohibition which existed on the import of foreign cattle and meat. "These changes," he says, "although they gave little satisfaction. to the most eager opponents of the Corn Law, and were indeed denounced · by some as perfectly nugatory, were not effected without great murmuring and some open opposition to the government on the part of many of its supporters. The duke of Buckingham resigned his seat in the Cabinet rather than be a party to them, nor was it an easy matter to procure the unanimous adoption of the measures I proposed by the remaining members of the government." + * Guizot, "Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel," p. 89. *His Grace resigned January 31, and was succeeded by the Duke of Buccleuch. Lord Ellenborough accepted the Governor-generalship of India, and was succeeded by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, October 23. CHAPTER XXV. War with China and War with Afghanistan-Commercial Relations with China-Beginnings of the Opium War-Its Moral Aspects-Debates in Parliament-Chusan captured-Treaty made at Canton repudiated by the Emperor--Canton attacked-Arrival of Sir H. Pottinger-Capture of Chin-Kiang-Foo -Treaty of Nanking-Afghanistan - Lord Auckland, Governor-general of India-Causes of the Afghan War-British Army crosses the Indus--The Bolan Pass-Siege of Ghuznee-Cabul entered in triumph-Shah Soojah restored-False security at Cabul-Afghan plots-Massacre of Burnes-The British Army in peril-Massacre of MacNaghten-Capitulation of the British-The Retreat from Cabul-Ladies and children given up-Destruction of the Army-One survivor arrives at Jellalabad-Sale's Defence of Jellalabad-Arrival of General Pollock-Cabul retaken-Release of the prisoners-The Army returns to India-Lord Ellenborough's proclamations -Gates of Somnauth. At this point of our domestic history it may be convenient to take a rapid view of the events connected with two distant wars in which the country was now engaged-a war with China and a war in Afghanistan. Briefly referring to the origin of each of these serious contests, we shall conduct the narrative to the period when peace was concluded with the Chinese government, and when terrible calamities in India were overcome, and security was again won, by the triumphs of our arms. We begin with China. In the Session of Parliament which was opened on the 16th of January, 1840, it was announced, in the Speech of the Queen, that "events had happened in China, interrupting commercial intercourse." The circumstances attending this interruption were debated in the House of Commons on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of April, upon a resolution moved by Sir James Graham, to the effect that the interruption in our commercial and friendly intercourse with China, and the hostilities which had since taken place, were mainly to be attributed to the want of foresight on the part of her majesty's advisers, and especially in their neglect to furnish the superintendent at Canton with powers and instructions calculated to provide against the growing evils connected with the contraband trade in opium. As the circumstances which led to this first war between Great Britain and the Chinese empire are really more important than any minute details of the events of the war, we must, as briefly as we can, relate what was the position of affairs up to the time when the discussion on Sir James Graham's motion took place. By the new charter of the East India Company, granted in 1833, the Company's monopoly of the China trade was abolished. It had probably not been sufficiently considered that serious collision with a government that had 444 COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH CHINA. [1840. so long and so pertinaciously insisted upon the exclusion of foreigners would be the natural consequence of the position in which the trade with China was now placed. The change was calculated to inspire vague fears of aggression amongst those who were not unacquainted with the fact that the merchants who, not a century before, had humbly asked for permission to establish a trade in India, were now the masters of that country, and that the descendants of Aurungzebe were their pensioners. The Chinese, however, had got accustomed to the East India Company, whose officers pretended to no public capacity, who came as humble merchants, and who kept up a quiet sleepy trade. In this intercourse there were occasional quarrels between the natives and the foreigners, but their traffic, whether legal or illegal, kept on its jog-trot course by the adroit management of the Company's agents, who could calculate to a nicety the amount of bribery that was necessary to propitiate a Chinese official. The British legislature upset all this; abolished supercargoes, vesting their authority in king's officers instead of mercantile agents; and authorized the executive to employ a Superintendent, with instructions to get into direct communication with the Chinese authorities. The number of European ships, merchants, and seamen, rapidly increased. The contraband trade in opium was suddenly augmented. In the first ten years of the present century the exports of opium from India to China averaged about 2500 chests; in 1833 they exceeded 23,000 chests, having risen from 13,000 chests in the previous year; and the subsequent average of five years was about 19,000 chests.* Opium was always an article prohibited by the Chinese government, or rather by the public acts of the Court of Pekin. The provincial authorities invariably nullified everything which was done by the superior power to discountenance the illicit trade, so that when the government of Pekin attempted to put down that traffic between Lin-tin and Canton, the viceroy of Canton substituted himself for the other opium smugglers, so that the whole affair bore the aspect of a juggle among the Chinese authorities. The Imperial government of China increased the severity of the law against opium smuggling, but still the smuggling went on, and especially increased on the east coast. There was a belief in 1837-8 that the trade would be legalized. A mandarin in high authority at Pekin, having sounder notions about smuggling than had prevailed in Europe with some persons, proposed that the sale of opium should be legalized, it being admitted like other goods with a duty of seven dollars a chest, whilst the expense of smuggling amounted to forty dollars. In a very able state paper he argued that the increased severity of the law against opium had only tended to increase the amount of the bribe paid to the official underlings for their connivance. The unfortunate mandarin was banished for his liberal advice, and the Imperial government adopted more violent but less effectual measures to put down the opium trade. There were two motives which influenced the Court of Pekin. They were alarmed at the rapid drain of silver for the purchase of opium, and they had to protect the interests of native poppy-growers. Lord Palmerston quaintly said, in the debate on the MacCulloch's "Commercial Dictionary," article, Opium. + Speech of Mr. Charles Buller, Hansard, vol. liii. col. 788. |