pass a vote of censure on us for following the example of the
right honourable Baronet and of the Duke of Wellington? But I am
understating my case. Since the present Ministers came into
office, the reasons against sending out such instructions were
much stronger than when the right honourable Baronet was in
office, or when the Duke of Wellington was in office. Down to
the month of May 1838, my noble friend had good grounds for
believing that the Chinese Government was about to legalise the
trade in opium. It is by no means easy to follow the windings of
Chinese politics. But, it is certain that about four years ago
the whole question was taken into serious consideration at Pekin.
The attention of the Emperor was called to the undoubted fact,
that the law which forbade the trade in opium was a dead letter.
That law had been intended to guard against two evils, which the
Chinese legislators seem to have regarded with equal horror, the
importation of a noxious drug, and the exportation of the
precious metals. It was found, however, that as many pounds of
opium came in, and that as many pounds of silver went out, as if
there had been no such law. The only effect of the prohibition
was that the people learned to think lightly of imperial edicts,
and that no part of the great sums expended in the purchase of
the forbidden luxury came into the imperial treasury. These
considerations were set forth in a most luminous and judicious
state paper, drawn by Tang Tzee, President of the Sacrificial
Offices. I am sorry to hear that this enlightened Minister has
been turned out of office on account of his liberality: for to
be turned out of office is, I apprehend, a much more serious
misfortune in China than in England. Tang Tzee argued that it
was unwise to attempt to exclude opium, for that, while millions
desired to have it, no law would keep it out, and that the manner