Yesterday a public meeting, which was both numerously and respectably, attended, was held in Freemasons’ Hall, Great Queen-street, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament against the opium war with China.

Earl Stanhope having been unanimously voted to the chair, said be considered it a distinguished honor to be called to preside over a meeting, assembled for a purpose which was most important to all who had at heart the honor and interest of Great Britain. He allowed that no declaration of war had been issued against the Government of China—orders, however, had been issued for the detention of trading vessels, and we were new engaged in hostilities with an empire the most peaceable, and also the most populous, which had ever existed either in ancient or modern times; an empire which had maintained with us relations of peace for more than two centuries; an empire with which we had carried on commerce, highly useful and beneficial to ourselves, supplying us with an article that had become from habit one of the necessaries of life to all classes of the population. We were engaged in a war with an empire, the trade of which yielded no less than four millions sterling in revenue, and employed thousands of seamen, as well as a capital amounting to ten millions. Under these circumstances, it behooved us to consider what was the origin of this war thus unexpectedly commenced; whether that war could be justified on that principle on which alone war, under any circumstances, could be tolerated—of its being necessary for self-defense; and whether, in the proceedings which had produced that calamity, we had acted upon that principle which was solemnly impressed upon us by the religion we all professed, of “doing to others as we would they should do unto us.” (Hear, hear.) It was their bounden duty to express their opinion freely and fully upon the subject, as became Englishmen, with the liberties they enjoyed. It would not be necessary for him to enter into a lengthened examination of those papers which had been presented to Parliament upon the subject, and which, although they contained much extraneous and irrelevant matter, omitted much of great importance to the question, and several documents which ought to have been furnished by the Government at home. It was the less requisite for him to go at great length into the subject, because it was his firm resolve, within a few days after the re-assembling of Parliament, to bring this subject fully before the consideration of the House of Lords, not with any party views, for he was, as they well know, altogether unconnected with any political party, but with a view of preventing, by an address to Her Majesty, the introduction of opium into China, by any of Her Majesty’s subjects, and thus establish the principle on which alone we could ever hope to restore that peaceful and beneficial intercourse which formerly existed between us and that empire. (Hear, hear.) When that discussion took place he would demonstrate satisfactorily to every impartial and intelligent person, from the evidence of Captain Elliot himself, that although there might have been in that country, as in this, instances of venality and corruption (but he was aware smuggling could not be carried on in this country at all, or, at least, to a great extent, if all those entrusted with the administration of the laws performed their duty), although such might have been the case in China, he would prove there was not connivance whatever, on the part of the Chinese Government, but that for several years the Chinese Government had made the strongest remonstrances against the continuance of the trade, and that repeated warnings had been given; that the British Superintendent had been called upon to send away from the coasts of China vessels lying upon the coasts, not with any view of prosecuting voyages, but solely for the purpose of receiving a poisonous drug, strongly prohibited by the Chinese laws, and introducing it surreptitiously into that empire. But they were told that the Chinese had violated the law of nations by confiscating this drug, and by the imprisonment, as it was called, of British subjects and the officers of the British factories engaged in this trade. He begged them to remember the position in which—he would not say the Chinese Government, but any independent Government, would be placed, when it found its orders were resisted, its powers defied, its warnings disregarded, no attention paid to its mandate, and no regard shown to the health, happiness or the lives of its subjects. Would it not be the most pusillanimous and unmanly in any Government to submit to such continued insult and defiance, and say—“Let your will be done; we will endure the injustice which you heap upon us without resistance?” (Hear.) But the Chinese had resented such conduct; and the persons whom they had subjected to punishment would be liable to punishment whether dealt with by the English or the Chinese laws. It had been said that the laws upon which the Chinese authorities had noted was a recent law, and, therefore, retrospective in its operation; but that was not the fact, for long ago it was laid down by the law of China that those who dealt in opium should be punished by “enslavement to the military in a distant country.” Every man owed implicit obedience to the laws of any foreign country in which he resided, nay, he owed a greater obedience to the laws of that country than his own, because he was not a citizen of that state. Suppose the Chinese had acted upon their own law with respect to that host of smugglers who lived at Canton, and carried on a trade known to be contraband, in open defiance of the laws of the Chinese empire, they would have been marched to the confines of Tartary, there to undergo the punishment of “enslavement to the military.” Again, if judged by the English law upon the subject, if they referred to a recent act called an Act for the prevention of smuggling, they would find that any person harboring, or who concurred or assisted in harboring, keeping, or the transportation of contraband articles, was to forfeit three times their value, so if that law were acted upon in China, the smugglers in question would have forfeited not the opium itself, but three times it amount. But that was not all, if they looked at another clause, they found that any ships found within a short distant of the coast, hovering about, not prosecuting voyages, were confiscated, and not only the ship, but the cargoes also. And suppose, if it were possible to imagine a parallel case in this country under the present system of free trade, as it was called, that any article should be prohibited in this country as opium was in China, its known effect in debasing and depraving the character, demoralizing the conduct, in destroying the health, the strength, the happiness, and lives of the countless millions of China. Suppose that with respect to an article, the use of which was in itself innocent, and of which the introduction could only have the effect—an effect to be much deprecated—of throwing our own artisans out of employment. In such a case, suppose that a number of French merchant ships should be lying for years at Margate, not continuing, or attempting to continue, their voyages, but remaining there for the sole purpose of receiving the contraband article, and sending it ashore as opportunity might offer. If there should be found living in the metropolis a number of French smugglers, giving orders on payment of money for the delivery of the prohibited article at Margate. Would such a state or things be tolerated in this country? (Hear.) Or if the ships should have been driven away from the coast by force of arms, and the smuggling merchants proceeded against in the courts of justice, would the French Government venture to ask for compensation? Or if any King or Minister of France should be found frantic enough to attempt to execute it, would there not be, from one extremity of the country to the other, one cry of war in defense of national rights, even amongst these who were the most peaceably inclined—those who like himself deprecated war as one of the greatest calamities that could befall the human race—as a thing always to be avoided if possible, and the most atrocious and iniquitous, if unjustly carried on. The Chinese nation, however, had not as yet called for war, but they might be ultimately goaded into resistance. It was with the greatest House of Commons by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, when asked the cause of the armament’s being sent to China, and what was the reason or justification of such a proceeding, said that its objects were, 1, To ask indemnity for the opium seized; 2, To demand reparation for injuries; and, 3, That he hoped to establish our commercial intercourse with China upon a better footing. With respect to indemnity for the opium seized, he could hardly think that the noble lord could have read the dispatch of his noble colleague, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on that subject. Long before the confiscation of the opium took place, that noble Lord had stated, in his dispatch, that those who violated the laws of China must suffer themselves the loss which must accrue. (Hear.) Could that be urged as a reason for the commencement of hostilities? Besides, this confiscation had even been of benefit to the opium holders, as it had greatly increased the price of the article, and facilitated the trade, which, owing to the increased rigor and vigor of the Chinese Government, had been almost extinguished. He would ask what had become of the honor of British merchants, which had hitherto been so celebrated in every quarter of the world? It had never fallen into such a state of disgrace and degradation as it was now, when British merchants, after having given a solemn pledge in writing to abstain from the introduction of opium into the Chinese empire, in the course of the same year were carrying it along the whole extent of the east coast of China, the introduction of this same opium in vessels equipped and armed for the purpose of war, in order to effect by force that which they might be unable to effect by fraud, compelling the authorities of the Chinese empire to have recourse to coercion to prevent its clandestine importation. (Cheers.) These who engaged in an unrighteous war did that which was detestable in the sight of God and man, and, ultimately would have to answer to their Creator for the iniquities they inflicted on their fellow creatures. (Cheers.) He would not presume to give an opinion as to the progress of the war or its probable consequences, or as to whether or not we might be able to contend successfully against a population of nearly 400,000,000 of human beings. It was true we might burn the towns and villages on their coasts; it was true we might murder (for murder it would be), (Cheers) the most peaceful, industrious, intelligent, and ingenious people in the world; we might slaughter the unoffending Chinese, we might capture, according to the provisions of the order in Council, their junks and trading vessels, our progress might be marked by blood and fire, but did they think by such means to obtain the object spoken of by the Secretary for the Colonies, namely, that of placing our commercial intercourse with the Chinese on a more secure footing than ever by having our name execrated and justly execrated throughout that immense empire? (Cheers.) We might talk as we pleased of our civilization, but we should show ourselves by our conduct to be nothing less than pirates. (Cheers.) Our trade would be injured. We could not attempt to enforce a blockade without being resisted by foreign nations. He would put this alternative, from which there was no escape. In blockading Canton, the blockade would either be recognized by the Americans or would not. If they did recognize it, what was to become of our trade in silk, paying upwards of four millions annually to the revenue, employing a capital of ten millions, and hundreds of thousands of our seamen? If they did not recognize it, we must either consent to this non-recognition or not. If we did not consent, and attempted to enforce this blockade in spite of America, we should be exposed to a war with a nation with which our commercial intercourse was most extensive and important—(hear, hear)—a nation, the navy of which was better prepared and more formidable than ours. If we consented to the non-recognition of the blockade on the part of America, and suffered their trade with the Chinese, the result would be, that the whole trade of the country would pass into the hands of the Americans. (Hear.) They had heard much of reparation for injuries. Now he could prove, from Parliamentary papers, that the Chinese had suffered from us the most irreparable injuries, that we had inflicted upon them the most flagrant acts of injustice; but he had yet to learn what were the indignities which the British superintendent had received from them! It was said that our representative had been imprisoned in Canton. Why, the fact was, that he forced himself into prison. Knowing that the merchants had been summoned before the high commissions to answer for their conduct, he forced his way to Canton, in spite of all remonstrance, and in defiance of positive orders issued to prevent him. He therefore was detained at Canton in common with others. But his detention could coarsely be called imprisonment; not did it appear, during that detention, which by a strange misnomer he called, “strlot confinement and captivity,” that he ever made application to be allowed to return to Canton, and was not permitted to do so. But it was said the innocent were made to suffer with the guilty. He should like to know of those detained how many were really innocent. He knew that there were a few most honorable exceptions among the British inhabitants of Canton, to whom all praise was due, because they lived in the midst of contagion and bad example. (Hear.) The detention had been general preparatory to inquiry—there was no exception made, but had yet to learn that, on the part of the guiltless persons, there had been any demand for satisfaction for alleged outrages. There was not nation more sensitive, or more able and willing to avenge a wrong than the people of the United States of America; but from them no complaints of the Chinese had been heard. Neither did the Dutch Consul, nor the representatives of any other foreign power, having subjects residing at Canton, complain. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, it was urged that the Chinese Government forcibly expelled the British from Canton, and had done so hastily as well as violently. But was the circumstance which led to that proceeding to be overlooked? In an affray which took place between the Chinese and some of our seamen, the houses of the natives were violently opened, outrages were committed on the defenseless inhabitants, and a Chinaman was murdered. Captain Elliot, after repeated applications and remonstrances, declared that he was unable to find out the murderer. No doubt, Captain Elliot, if the murderer had been discovered, would have dealt with him according to the laws of his country; but he took not measures to discover him. (Hear.) It was the bounden duty of Captain Elliot to call upon the Chinese to be present at the trial, and to ascertain whether they could identify the individual who killed their countryman; but instead of that he regarded the crews of his own ships as judge, jury, and accusers too. (Hear.) He alluded to this the more pointedly, because Captain Elliot, in one of his dispatches, said, that in any similar case an investigation by both nations should take place. (Hear, hear.) But, omitting the mention of numerous injuries which we had inflicted on the Chinese, he would proceed to notice that of which they most complained, the introduction of a poison amongst that population, which enervated and destroyed them. So ruinous was opium to the human frame, that on one occasion thousands of soldiers who had used the drug were discharged from the Chinese army, being totally unfit for service. How could we, with any appearance of justice, complain against China because she retaliated upon us for the numberless miseries we had caused, and the pestilence and death which we had carried to her shores by the trade we had carried on with her in opium. No nation that had the least regard for its own dignity, or that which was far more, the health, and happiness, and prosperity of its subjects, could positively have delayed longer resenting that conduct which had been pursued by the merchants of this country towards the people of China. It was the duty of every person in this country, if he would obey the laws of God and man, to raise his voice and petition the legislature for an equitable and pacific arrangement of the differences of this country with the Chinese. (Hear, hear.) Let the meeting consider for a moment bowing this, as in all such instances, even-handed justice had returned some of the ingredients of the poisoned chalice to those who held it. (Hear.) Great hopes had been entertained of Assam. It had been confidently expected that the cultivation of tea there would be of no small advantage to this country; and undoubtedly it was the duty of every Government to provide for the employment and subsistence of its own population. But, alas! According to a report recently made by a person connected with the tea plantations in Assam, by the use of opium amongst the laborers, all our hopes of that experiment had been blasted. (Hear, hear.) Look at another view of the subject; look at the infamy this country was bringing upon itself by sanctioning the continuance of a course which was disapproved by an independent state, because it was the means of destroying the health, the morals, and the lives of its hitherto innocent people. (Hear, hear.) Look at what had hitherto taken place, and what might hereafter occur. The propagation of Christianity had been retarded, and probably for centuries. In vain had the Bible Society sent out large numbers of Bibles into that country, translated into its language, for the purpose of disseminating the Christian religion there. In vain did their missionaries risk their health and lives in this great work; in vain did they attempt to imitate the example of the Apostles of the Christian faith. (Cheers.) In vain did they attempt all this. Their exertions were rendered useless by the injustice of this country. He would suppose the instance of a Chinese youth being addressed by one of the Society’s missionaries, who was endeavoring to teach him the beauties of the Christian religion. what would be his answer? That answer had already been given by a Chinese youth. It was this: The intelligent youth, who, doubtless, felt the force of a good deal that was said, but recollected the ills that had been inflicted upon his country by the countrymen of the man who was talking to him, lifted up his eyes to Heaven, and exclaimed, “Lord, how great thy mercies are, in allowing men to live who speak so well and act so ill!” (Great cheering.) The thinking Chinese would say, “Can we believe you to be sincere? Are you anything less than mere canting hypocrites when you talk to us of the Bible, which you bring to us, and tell us it ought to be the guide of our conduct and the teacher of our faith, whilst you yourselves have heaped innumerable calamities upon this country, because our good Emperor formed the wise, benevolent, and patriotic determination of preventing the introduction of poison amongst his people, although he himself might have derived a considerable revenue from its importation.” (Hear, hear.) A government nearer homo had altered the duty on foreign spirits with the avowed design of increasing their consumption, regardless of the health and lives of people; but not so the Emperor of China; he had not enriched himself by any such unhallowed means. (Hear.) When he (Earl Stanhope) should bring this subject under the consideration of the House of Lords, he hoped he should receive some support, although, perhaps, no member of that house was, as he was, a member of a total abstinence society. (A laugh.) He knew he should have the support of his fellow-citizens, and he would be found at his post, if he stood alone, fully and fearlessly to declare his conscientious opinions on this subject. (Cheers.) He could here enter into a variety of details which would, however, now be unnecessary, as they would be brought before the House of Lords. He trusted that he had expressed his views upon the subject impartially and consistently. He had, in conclusion, to declare his unqualified approbation of the resolutions to be proposed, which he hoped would be considered fairly and dispassionately, and that if (as he doubted not) they met with the concurrence of the meeting, petitions founded upon them would be circulated through all the districts of the metropolis, and numerously and respectably signed. (The noble earl resumed the chair, amidst loud cheers.)

On Mr. S. Taylor coming forward to propose the first resolution, a person in the body of the meeting rose and requested that some means would be taken before proceeding to business, to place an individual of perfectly independent principles in the chair. (Cries of “Order.”)

The noble Chairman said he had had some experience in public meetings, but he confessed that the course taken by the gentleman who had just spoken, was a perfect novelty to him. Perhaps it was one of the improvements of this enlightened age, that after a chairman had been appointed by the common consent of the assembly, to propose, before any resolution was moved, another chairman. Undoubtedly this was a public meeting, and if the gentleman inquired—would the friends of the opium smuggler be heard? The answer was, that they would. (“Hear, hear,” and cries of “No, no.”)

Another individual attempted to address the meeting, but was silenced by general disapprobation of the assembly. The interruptions having ceased.

Mr. S. Taylor said, he confessed he could not imagine upon what ground any person who know the character of the noble lord should offer the slightest objection to his occupying the chair. (Hear, hear.) But the interruption was not to be regretted, inasmuch as it had called forth an honest and cordial expression of esteem from a British audience for a nobleman, not more distinguished for his high lineage in the peerage of this country than for his modest worth, and his readiness at all times to come forward as the zealous and eloquent friend of the sacred interests of justice and benevolence. (Cheers.) He looked at this question not as one of party feeling, nor of sectarian interest; but a question of public morality—a question involving the honor of the British nation and our Christian character, and affecting the welfare of 350,000,000 of our fellow-creatures in China. (Hear.) Upon indisputable evidence it rested that ever since 1796 the Court of Pekin, the supreme authority of China, had been zealously and earnestly active in preventing the opium trade; proclamations had been issued, edicts published, penalties threatened, but all in vain—the trade, instead of diminishing, had enormously increased. After dwelling at some length on the demoralizing effects of opium, and the injustice of fighting against the Emperor of China for endeavoring to remove the cause of the evils he saw spreading amongst his subjects, he observed that some had defended the war with China on the ground that it might be made the means of facilitating the introduction of Christianity. A more monstrous proposition he never heard of—instead of missionaries and bibles, our ships were to be the bearers to the Chinese of opium and death. It was the very mockery of Christianity itself. He admitted that in the dark ages war had been undertaken for the propagation of Christianity; but there was something of chivalry in these wars, and they had fanatical ignorance for their excuse. The present, however, was a case of sordid and selfish baseness, unrelieved by a single generous impulse or design. (Hear, hear.) It was not upon the alter of Christianity, but the alter of Mammon, that the torch was lighted to spread the conflagration of war through the dominions of China. He concluded by moving the first resolution.

“That this meeting, whilst it most distinctly disavows any party or political objects, and deprecates most strongly any such construction being put upon its efforts, deeply laments that the moral and religious feeling of the country should be outraged, the character of Christianity disgraced in the eyes of the world, and this kingdom involved in a war with upwards of 350,000,000 of people, in consequence of British subjects introducing opium into China in direct and known violation of the laws of that empire.” (Hear, hear.)

The Rev. C. Stoyel, in seconding the resolution, observed that war must be repugnant to our feelings as Christians, or we were not much the better for our Christianity. (Hear.) It had been said by Sir George Staunton that our commercial relations with China stood upon such very uncertain and undefined grounds, that it became matter of great difficulty to conduct any transactions with that empire. It had been said that the Emperor of China would not admit in proper form, and treat with proper respect, a Consul from our Government, or receive such an officer from us. No doubt there were many difficulties in such a state of things, but he would submit whether the settling of such a question by war was not an outrage upon the Christian feeling of the country, and called for its most solemn protest. (Hear.) Even had they broken our laws, or wrongfully imprisoned our merchants, still that would not have been a case for war. There were precedents for negotiation—negotiations with the same power had been resorted to on former occasions, and upon all such occasions ample redress had been obtained. (Hear.) Upon this occasion, had there been any appeal to the Emperor? No; that course, the proper one, had not been taken. (Hear.) The Chinese Government was purely patriarchal, and the Emperor of China could not be expected, as the royal father of his people, to embrace and cherish those who destroyed them in spite of his often repeated remonstrances. (Hear.)

Mr. Hopkins, who had several times essayed to get a hearing, was here invited upon the platform by the noble chairman, who declared he would secure to every person an Impartial hearing. Mr. Hopkins contended that others besides British merchants had introduced opium among the Chinese, and denied that a single ounce was imported by British subjects. (Oh, oh.) He did not come there to run down his country, quite the reverse. (Laughter.) He moved as an amendment, the substitution of the word “Chinese” for the word “British,” in the latter part of the resolution.

Mr. Robertson next presented himself, and in a long speech argued that the opium trade was not the cause, nor a cause, but an occasion, the unfortunate and melancholy occasion, of the reprisals which had been made. Therefore there was in reality no war at present, and if the reprisals should end in a war, it ought not to be called an opium war. He concluded, not by seconding the amendment, but by preposing another amendment, embodying his arguments.

Mr. M’Dowall, amidst muck confusion, seconded the latter amendment, for which six or seven hands were held up. It was therefore negatived; the first amendment dropped dead, and the original resolution was carried.

Some other resolutions, deprecating the war, and condemning the East India Company, and the growers and traffickers in opium, as the authors of it, were proposed, and supported by the Rev. J. Burnet, Mr. Evans, Mr. G. W. Alexander, Mr. Eagle, Dr. Barry, Mr. Sturge, Mr. Scoble, and Dr. Hodgkin; and a petition to both houses of Parliament, embodying the resolutions, was unanimously adopted.

Thanks were then voted to the noble chairman, and the proceedings, which lasted upwards of five hours, terminated.