As to the first, the answer is simple. It is true that the
Government did not revoke that part of the instructions which
directed the Superintendent to reside at Canton; and it is true
that this part of the instructions did at one time cause a
dispute between the Superintendent and the Chinese authorities.
But it is equally true that this dispute was accommodated early
in 1837; that the Chinese Government furnished the Superintendent
with a passport authorising him to reside at Canton; that, during
the two years which preceded the rupture, the Chinese Government
made no objection to his residing at Canton; and that there is
not in all this huge blue book one word indicating that the
rupture was caused, directly or indirectly, by his residing at
Canton. On the first count, therefore, I am confident that the
verdict must be, Not Guilty.

To the second count we have a similar answer. It is true that
there was a dispute with the authorities of Canton about the mode
of communication. But it is equally true that this dispute was
settled by a compromise. The Chinese made a concession as to the
channel of communication. The Superintendent made a concession
as to the form of communication. The question had been thus set
at rest before the rupture, and had absolutely nothing to do with
the rupture.

As to the third charge, I must tell the right honourable Baronet
that he has altogether misapprehended that memorandum which he so
confidently cites. The Duke of Wellington did not advise the
Government to station a ship of war constantly in the China seas.
The Duke, writing in 1835, at a time when the regular course of
the trade had been interrupted, recommended that a ship of war