The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

200 the English flag. Now, mark what he says—" The vessel had no protection, but the Chinese do not know this ; for God's sake do not whisper it to them." ( Hear.) lie persevered, too, for he said in effect, "We know the Chinese have not been guilty of any violation of treaty, but we will not tell them so ; we will insist upon a repara tion, and a return of the men they have seized in a par ticular form." If the men were not returned in the form, what was to be the remedy 9 Why, to seize a junk, a war junk; if that was not sufficient seize more, until we com pelled them to submit, although we knew they had the right on their side, and we had no justice on ours— (Hear)—and although the officer directing those measures was the representative of the Sovereign of Great Britain, whose honour he was bound to protect, but which he was compromising by plunging into a war. Was there ever conduct more abominable, more flagrant, in which, I will not say more fraudulent, bat what is equal to fraud in our country, more false pretence has been put forward by a public man in the service of the British Government? It was clear that Sir J. Bowring had acted through out upon one fixed idea—viz., his own general re ception into Canton, as immediately after the rupture he lost sight of the case of the Arrow, and confined himself solely to demanding the fulfilment of the terms of the treaty of 184:2. The course of violence, however, which he had taken was the least likely to lead to that freer and more friendly intercourse which it was his desire to obtain, and thus, by adopt ing it, he had defeated his own wishes. Lord Lynd hurst, in conclusion, contended it was clear that from the very first moment at which Sir J. Bowring was appointed to his present office his great ambition was to procure an entrance for English traders within the walls of Canton, in spite of the failure of all his predecessors to accomplish that object, and to this was to be attributed all the deplorable results that had ensued. He heartily concurred in the sentiments expressed by his noble friend (Lord Derby), and would cordially support his motion. The LORD CHANCELLOR complained that Lord Derby and Lord Lyndhurst, had both assumed what he denied was the fact,—that the Chinese authori ties had given no occasion for complaint. The question was whether, there being a treaty by which the Chinese were bound not to seize suspected Criminals on board English ships without the inter vention of the British Consuls, the Chinese authori ties had a right to board the Arrow, and take away the crew. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the British flag was flying at the time, and therefore between us and China this was a British ship. The Chinese might have complained, if they had thought fit, that a register had been im • properly granted, but th?y had no right whatever, according to international law, to board the Arrow, and thus themselves to decide the question of its nationality. The learned lord gave the following definition of a British ship from an interned )nal point of view : If the British Government authorises a ship to go into a foreign port and carry the British flag, as hetween us and the foreign country, this is certainly a British ship. Earl GREY could not conceive any doctrine more dangerous than that subordinate officers, who might not be persons of easy temper, might be allowed to resort to offensive measures without reference to the Home Government. The navigation laws clearly set forth what were British ships, but those laws in the case of China were modified by the treaty ; and it was important to inquire whether the Arrow was a British ship in the full intent and meaning of the term : In 1814 considerable alterations were made in the nevi gallon laws, and the statute was divided into several parts. Section 17 provided that the second part of the act should apply to the whole of her Majesty's dominions everywhere, and it then went on to describe in clear and distinct terms what shall be deemed to he a British ship. That clause is followed by another, which declares that any ship any hoisting British colours, and not owned by persons described in the act, is ipso facto forfeit to her Majesty. Am I now to be told that the enactment of the British Parliament is to be overruled in the river of Canton, where Hong Kong has no mere j trisdiction than it has in Jamaica, by an ordinance of Hong Song? There is a question of public policy and public principle of the greatest moment involved in this matter. Parliament pre serves ;he right to decide what are British ships and what are net. It is an imperial right, and I ask, can anything be conceived which is more distinctly and more properly an imperial right? By hoisting the. British flag vessels become entitled to British protection, and we may be in• volved in difficulties of the most serious nature with foreign nations if that power be improperly exercised. (Hear, hear.) He maintained that the Arrow was not a British vessel in any sense of the term, and such, from first to last, had been the argument of the Chinese : I am afraid that under any fair construction of the treaty the Arrow was not a British ship; and let me point out to your lordships that from firm to last this is the argument of \eh. On the 14th of October he repeats that statement. lie always returns to that point, and never admits that an itifrastion of the treaty hail been committed. "The whole question amounts to this —a lorcha built Sy Chinese purchased a British register, but that doss not make her a British vessel." How does Sir John Bowring, how do the British authorities meet this? is there any argument to prose that by paying ts o fees of THE PRESS. twenty-five dollars each a Chinese vessel can purchase a register and then become a British ship—any attempt to show that, according to a (air understanding of the treaty, this ship is to be considered as having been under British protection? Nothing of the kind. All that we find is a mere naked assertion, a blustering assertion, that she is a British ship, and that the Chinese must apologise. I say a blustering assertion, and unfortunately an assertion directly in the teeth not only of the truth, but of what Sir J. Bowring by his own showing knew at the time to be true, because the noble lord opposite ( Earl Derby) has shown that before Le wrote to the Chinese authorities he had written to Consul Parkes saying that this lords, was not entitled to British pretectim. ( Hear, hear.) The Duke of ARGYLL vindicated the conduct of the Government, and on the motion of the Earl of CARNARVON the debate, at twelve o'clock, was ad journed until Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY. REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM. Sir J. WALMSLEY moved for a select committee to consider and report upon the most practical means for lessening the existing inequalities in our repre sentative system, and for extending to the unen franchised that share of political power to which they might be justly entitled. Comparing the counties and boroughs together, and then counties with counties, he showed that great inequality existed in our representative system. In the latter case, whether as regarded property, population, number of houses or number of electors, twenty-four counties and divisions had eighty six members more than they were entitled to, and ten other counties had twenty less than their relative proportion ; while, in the former case, twenty-nine large and rapidly in creasing towns were totally unrepresented. But the paramount evil was this, that with 28,000,000 of population we bad only 1,1)00,000 electors. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the present motion on the ground that it was so indefinite and general in its character that he believed the cause of reform would be damaged rather than advanced by the ap pointment of the committee. Mr. STAFFORD, who opposed the present motion, reviewed the recent course of the Government in relation to an extended franchise, and called on them to declare when they expected the fitting season would arrive for a comprehensive measure of reform which they could support in a body. Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Digby Seymour, and Mr. Warren opposed the motion. Lord PALMERSTON, remarking upon tho very general objections of the Liberal party, said he re sisted the motion on the /argument against Sir J. Walmsley's proposal, that it was of too great Impor tance and ciC too wide a range, and involved too many material interests, to be thrown to the chance decision of a committee. He thought that those who brought the subject before Parliament should put it definitely in the shape of a bill. The house then divided ; the numbers were— For the motion 73 Against it Majority CIVIL SERVICE IN INDIA. Mr. V. SMITH, in answer to Mr. Deasy, said no reduction had taken place, was contemplated, or could take place, in the number of appointments in 'the civil service in India, open to public competition, as the number was fixed by Act of Parliament. STATUTE CONSOLIDATION. The ATTORNEY-GENERAT, in answer to Mr. A. Pellatt, said that the statutes relating to masters and workmen had been consolidated by the Statute law Commissioners. The consolidation bill was now under the revision of that body, and he believed it would be brought in and laid upon the table. He Was not aware that there was any intention on the part of the Government to introduce any other measure on the subject.. HEALTH OF TOWNS. Mr. CowrEn, in reply to Mr. Palk, said he had given notice of a bill to amend the Public Health Act, and he proposed to ask leave to introduce it on the :nth of March. It would be the same as that agreed to by the select committee, with various alter ations, suggested by further deliberations, but such as he did not think the committee would be disposed to dispute. GENERAL MATSON. Mr. PEEL, in answer to Colonel Dunne, said the court of inquiry into the charges against General Beatson would only be open to the parties conc'rned, and not to the public. It was simply a preliminary proceeding, and analogous to the grand jury in civil cases. JOINT-STOCK BANKS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to Mr. Wiikinson, stated that the Government had prepared a measure on the subject of joint-stock banks, which would be introduced by the Vice. President of the Board of Trade as soon as there was a probability of its being considered. SATURDAY, RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. Mr. BENTINCK moved for a select committee to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation. The motion was opposed by Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Heyworth, and supported by Mr. Palk and Mr. Waddington. _ _ Mr. fowE said the Government had no objection to the appointment of this committee, which he hoped might devise some means of lessening the number of raiiway accidents ; although he did not believe that this was to be sought by legislation. The motion was agreed to. CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION (IRELAND). Mr. DEASY called attention to the present mode of conducting the examinations of candidates for ad• mission into the civil senice in Ireiand, and moved an address to her Majesty, praying that she would be pleased to give directions to have such examinations conducted, as in England, by examiners whose character, acquirements, and experience rendered them peculiarly fitted for the duty. He complained not only that the examination was not a real com petitive one, but also that it was intrusted to a single person, Dr. Ball. The motion wss seconded by Mr. NAPIER. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he could not accede to the motion. The Government were op posed to the establishment of an independent Board of Commissioners in Dublin. The house divided on the question, when the mo tion was rejected by a majority of 44 to 35. AN ARCTIC EXPEDITION. :‘lr. NAPIER called attention to the communication which had taken place with the Government respect ing the Franklin Expedition, and enforced the claim which was urged on the score of justice and humanity for a further and cDmplete search, with the view of discovering and relieving any survivors of that expedition. Captain SCOBEIL believed that some relics of the crews of the Resolute and Terror might yet he dis covered, and supported the proposal for another searching expedition. _ _ _ Admiral WALCOTT entertained a different opinion. He was convinced that no chance remained of finding any survivors of the ill.fated expedition, and no good purpose could be served, either in the cause of hu manity or scientific discovery, by sending new ad venturers upon the track of the late Sir J. Franklin. Sir C. Noon also believed that any further search would prove entirely useless, and only risk the sacri fice of fresh victims without affording the slightest prospect of a useful result. No further expeditions would, therefore, he sent out, not from any notion of economy. although 610,0001. had been spent in the cause already, hut simply because the Government were persuaded that no survivors would be found, and no just motive existed to imperil the lives of gallant men in new researches. Mr. MONcKTON MILNEs and Mr. WHITESIDE warmly supported the motion, which was ultimately with drawn. The house having gone into committee, The CH kNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to savings-banks, with the object of establishing banks for savings under Government tecurity. The motion was agreed to and leave was given to introduce the measure. HOUSE OF CO M NION S.—WEDNESDAY. IRISH FISHERIES BILL. Mr. M'MAHON moved the second reading of the Seacoast Fisheries Bill. Mr. Frrzoefloa,n, in moving to defer the second reading for six months, observed that the bill might be very good for Wexford, but for the rest of Ire land it would be most inexpedient and mischievous, and he advised the house rather to trust to the pre sent laws. Colonel DUNNE opposed the bill. Mr. KENNEDY was at a loss to understand why an assimilation of the seacoast fishery laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland could be objected to. Mr. NAPIER denied that this bill did assimilate the several laws. The bill was opposed by Mr. Grogan, Mr. G. Butt, Mr. Meagher, Lord Naas, and Captain Bellew ; and supported by Mr. Bowyer and Captain Scotia. The house divided, when the amendment was carried by 185 to 10; so the bill is lost. JUDGMENTS' EXECUTION BILL. The house then went again into committee upon the Judgments' Execution, &c., Bill, but, after a division upon the first clause adverse to the views of the framer, Mr. Craufurd, the chairman re ported progress, in order that that gentleman might determine whether he would prooeed further with the bill. The report upon savings banks was brought up, and agreed to.