nese merchants in which the latter earnestly expressed his opinion that all that was wanted to preserve peace was, that the superintendent should have control over the English traders who came to this country.

What answer would be given to this charge of not having invested the British representative with the requisite powers? It would be said, that application had been made to parliament to give the powers requisite, and that parliament did not meet the views of the government. He (Sir R. Peel) would give the history of that ap. plication. In January, 1836, the government knew that the powers were defective, the order in council was a mockery. The session of 1836 commenced. No step was taken. In 1837 a bill was brought forward, but not till the 28th of June. It passed the house of commons without debate. It was withdrawn from the Lords also without debate, on account, it was said, of the lateness of the session. This was on the 10th of July. Parliament was prorogued on the 17th; that was to say, the government knew in January, 1836, that the superintendent had not requisite powers; yet parliament was not moved to give the powers by legislation until 1837, when the bill was withdrawn without remonstrance, and without a word, good, bad, or indifferent, being said upon it: 1838 arrived, and they applied again to parliament for increased powers. They brought in the bill on the 30th of April, 1838, and there were, he believed, thirty-two postponements from day to day. It passed the house of commons in July. This bill which had been unopposed in the commons and had been withdrawn

from the lords on the 10th of July, 1837, did not appear in the house of commons till the 28th of July, some twenty days after it had been withdrawn from the lords in the previous session, on account of the lateness of the period. Papers were presented to the house on that occasion calculated, if ever papers were, to mislead them. The house would be led to infer from this correspondence, that every thing was in a satisfactory state with respect to our position in China. An opposition was made to the bill and it was withdrawn. But what did that bill effect? It merely added a civil jurisdiction to the jurisdiction which existed before.

The right hon. baronet concluded his speech in the following words "Again and again, I say, do not enter into this war without a becoming spirit-a spirit becoming the name and character of England. Do not forget the peculiar character of the people with whom you have to deal, and so temper your measures that as little evil as possible may remain. Remember that the character of the people has lasted for many generations, that it is the same now which was given to them by Pliny and many subsequent writers. It is your duty to vindicate the honour of England where vindication is necessary, and to demand reparation whenever reparation is due. But God grant that all this may lead to the restoration of a icable relations with China, with little disturbance of our relations with other nations. In the absence of every confidence in her majesty's ministers, I will express a wish in which the party of the right hon. member for Edinburgh would join. I would pray the Almighty Disposer from whom

all just counsel and good works proceed. I pray to God that he will dispose the minds of the people, and defend them from the evils which they may deserve. I pray to God that he will avert from them the calamities, and turn from us the evils which, I must say, the neglect and incapacity of our rulers have most righteously deserved."

Viscount Palmerston next rose, and commenced his speech, by saying, that if the resolution of the right hon, baronet who had opened the debate were not so pointedly directed at the department which he had the honour to fill, he should not have thought it necessary to address himself to a motion so feebly enforced as the one then under discussion. He complained, He complained, that when the charge brought against the government was one of omission, neither the resolution nor any of those who supported it, stated what should have been done. He was happy, however, to find, that all who had spoken on the opposite side, with a few trifling exceptions, had dwelt on the conduct of captain Elliot in terms more of approval than of criticism. He felt it due to captain Elliot, whose zeal, courage, and patience, had been signally exhibited in these transactions, to clear up two points upen which his conduct had been subjected to criticism. These were, that he had encouraged the contraband traffic in opium, and that he had prepared to protect the opium vessels from attack. The noble lord proceeded to contend, that in these respects, captain Elliot had been justified in the course he had taken, inasmuch as he was acting in point of fact in self-defence.

The right hon. Baronet (Sir

R. Peel) had said, that the superintendants were not furnished with those instructions and powers which it would have been the straight course to have pursued. But he (lord Palmerston) asked what were the instructions and powers which ought to have been sent? Hon. members opposite did not choose to say, what those precise instructions and sufficient powers ought to have been. He must say, that he had given such as he had considered necessary; but it was said, that if the government of 1835 had continued in power, they would have settled things differently—and as a proof that such would have been the case, he was referred to the memorandum of the duke of Wellington. The document was a very clear one; but he must say, that it appeared to him to fall into the same error as hon. gentlemen opposite, in supposing that courts had not been established in China, and that some order in council was necessary for the attainment of that object. If that was a correct view of the meaning of the document, then he must say, it was a misapprehension of the case, for those courts had actually been established.

As to the recommendation, that till the trade returned to its peaceable channel, a stout frigate and a smaller vessel of war, should always be within reach of the superintendant; he must say, that that advice was at variance with the principle acted upon by the East-India company; and at variance also with the principle on which the instructions to lord Napier were founded. But he had himself written to the Admiralty to send out a ship of war to China for the protection of British sub

jects-and further, the admiral on the station had been directed to go himself to China, in order that by personal communication with the superintendant, arrangements might be made, whereby naval protection might always be afforded in case of necessity. As to the opium trade, he denied that if parliament had given the ministry the power, and they had given the superintendant the right of issuing an order for prohibiting British subjects from engaging in that trade, it would have been obeyed. The trade expelled from Canton would have taken refuge in other places. It would have gone along the coast of China studded with islands, indented with harbours lined with cities and towns, all thirsting for trade of whatever description, but most eagerly for trade in this especial article; and instead of being concentrated as now, it would be diffused over all that immense extent of district. Without a vast police and preventive force, the instructions which ministers were ridiculed for not send ing, would have been nothing more than waste paper. Our merchants, too, would carry on the trade under the American flag-under that flag they would snap their fingers at our cruisers-and thus the trade in opium would not be put down. Instead, therefore, of thinking himself liable to the censure of the house, he absolutely claimed merit for not having given to the superintendant at Canton such powers and instructions as the right hon. member for Pembroke recommended. But it had been said, that we ought to have sent an embassy to China. He thought,

however, that it would have been an unwise policy to send an ambassador there, when the only practical measure which we could have proposed to the Chinese government was, to join with them in putting down the trade in opium. The noble lord afterwards read a memorial, addressed by a number of American merchants to their own government, in which they condemned the course adopted by the Chinese commissioner Liu as unjust and no better than robbery, and recommended vigorous cooperation on the part of America and France with the British government in obtaining satisfaction and placing the foreign commerce upon a safe and advantageous footing. He read also a letter addressed to himself by thirty respectable firms in London engaged in the China trade, who declared their deliberate opinion, that, unless the measures of the government were followed up with firmness and energy, the trade with China could no longer be conducted with security to life and property, or with credit or advantage to the British nation. The noble lord concluded by expressing his conviction, that those who supported ministers early in the session on the want of confidence vote would not desert them now, and that they would support them in resisting this motion of censure which they did not deserve, and this palpable endeavour to substitute another ministry in their place.

The house then divided on the resolution, when there appeared :-Ayes 262; Noes 271: Majority 9. So the motion was negatived.

violated the condition, and for that reason the contract or compact was at an end; they were induced to support the present bill on the ground that the interest of the church had been secured by the Tithe bill, and the individual who possessed more power than any other man had ever possessed in Ireland, told them that this interest of the church should not be secure. The bill being a virtual transfer of the power then possessed by the Protestants into the hands of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he should move as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Litton seconded the amendment. He said it was generally believed that a compact either implied or understood had existed between the government and the conservative party, the object of which was to bring about a satisfactory settlement of those Irish questions, the continuel agitation of which was fraught with so much mischief. The hon. member then contended that if there was such a compact, the govern ment by their conduct had broken it, and that therefore this conservative party were in honour and justice relieved from the observation of its conditions any longer.

Mr. Shaw said, that he intended to vote for the second reading without pledging himself as to any of the details of the bill. He felt bound, both by consistency and good faith, to take that course, because he saw the good effects of the Irish Tithe bill, in the increased security of the Irish church, and the improved condition of society in Ireland. The Poor-law was, he believed, notwithstanding some drawbacks and difficulties coming into useful operation; at

all events it supplied a safe criterion of franchise. He had not heard any of his hon. friends contend that the Irish corporations could be retained in their present form: for his own part, considering the altered laws and circumstances of Ireland, he thought that object was not possible nor desirable, and from first to last in all the discussions of the subject, he had never either there or elsewhere given a different opinion. It was his positive conviction that the continuance of the Irish corporations in their present decayed and declining state, was rather an injury than a service to the conservative party. He should, therefore, vote for the second reading of the bill, and endeavour in the committee to make considerable amendments in the details to many of which in their present shape he objected.

Mr. Sergeant Jackson said, that he would vote for the second reading, but he would oppose the bill in every subsequent stage unless it were so altered as to satisfy him that it would not convert the municipal corporations in Ireland from Protestant communities into exclusively Roman Catholic institutions.

Mr. O'Connell made a short speech in favour of the bill, in the course of which he said, that if the meaning of the bill were to take power from a Protestant because he was a Protestant, and to give that power to a Catholic because he was a Catholic, he (Mr. O'Connell would oppose it most strenuously; but the complaint under the present system was, that the Roman Catholic did not get that power and privilege which he was justly entitled to. He would instance the city of