The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

.222 With respect to Mr. Parkes, a good deal of praise had been heard of him from the Home Secretary, but he (Sir J. Pakingtou) found in Mr. Parkes' letters to Yeh contradictions to an extent the most dangerous and unwise : He (Sir J. Pakington) deeply regretted to find that throughout the whole of this correspondence there was manifested the same pai►►ful and discreditable difference between the conduct of the British and the Chinese autho rities. On the one aide were pride, arrogance, and insult, while on the other were calmness, reasoning—(" Hear, hear," and a langl►)—he was astonished to see one hon. member who had been a very short time in that house, and who was not very much accustomed to its debates, make merry with the remarks which he had made. He could only presume that that hon. member had not read the papers, for if he had he would find that what he ( Sir J. Pakington) had said was perfectly correct. The language of Commissioner Yeh was distinguished > y calmness, by rea soning, but above all by moderation under the grossest in sults. Which of the letters written by the Chinese and British authorities were those of a gentleman—above all, which those of a Christian—those of the barbarian, the non-Chris tian, or those of him who wrote as the official of a Chris tian country? He (Sir J. Pakington) deeply regretted the language which had been used during these debates as to the conduct which we as a civilised power ought to adopt toward Oriental States. The right hon. gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had said that when dealing with such States our object should be to terrify them with ideas of our power, and a similar doctrine was laid down by a noble earl (the Earl of Clarendon) in another place. That noble earl had said that it was im portant to make the Chinese sensible of the law of force, but he (SirJ. Pakington) would rather adopt the senti ment thus expressed by the noble member for the city of London,—" I care not whether we are dealing with the Chinese or with Europeans, depend upon the sound maxim, 'Be just and fear not.'" He could imagine nothing more unworthy of Englishmen than the idea that we were to bully the weak when we thirst not do so to the strong, and that we were to attack the un fortunate Chinese and destroy a peaceful town merely because they did not choose to act according to our wishes. (Cheers.) As to the revival of the demand to enter Canton, Lord Palmerston in 18-18, Lord Granville, Lord Grey, Lord Malmesbury, and Lord Clarendon had distinctly for bidden the enforcement of this claim by arms with out the consent of the Home Government ; while Sir George Bonham hadexpressed his dis tinct opinion that the indisposition of the people of that city to receive foreigners was so great that it could not be resisted, and it would therefore be most imprudent to insist upon our right to enter the town. Mr. COLLIER, in opposing the motion, insisted that the Chinese had been guilty of violating for fifteen years a solemn treaty—conduct which would not have been put up with in the case of a strong power—and they were now presuming upon our forbearance, and trying how far they could go. tinder the treaty the lorcha, he argued, was fully entitled to be considered a British vessel ; an outrage upon it was committed —the application of Consul Parkes for redress and atonement was fair and reasonable, and the answer of Commissioner Yeh evaded the demand without denying the insult. If the consul had been satisfied and proceeded no further, he and the Government would have been generally and severely blamed. If the house affirmed this resolution, it would amount to a concession that we had been in the wrong from the beginning; the Chinese Government would be entitled to reparation, and would demand an abject apology. By negativing the resolution, he did not commit himself to a policy of aggression or annexa tion : He merely affirmed the principle that, where treaties had been violated and our flag insulted, it was incumbent on us to seek redress ; that that redress should be mode‘ rate, and, being so, ought to be rigidly enforced. fle was in favour of no more compulsion than was requisite to obtain that reasonable end. Sir F. THESIOF.II said it was a matter of surprise to him that all the able and powerful minds which had addressed themselves to the question could have gone so completely astray, and that the acuteness and subtlety of Sir J. Bowring himself, a gentleman possessed of a Timid so acute and subtle that, had he lived in the days of the school:nen, would have procured for him the name of the "Irrefutable Doctor," should have so completely misunderstood the grounds of his own defence as to argue and maintain the cause upon the supplemental treaty of 1843 instead of on the basis of the ordinance. Sir John Bowring, in his letter to Mr. Consul Parkes, said that it appeared on examination that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag, the licence to do so having expired, but the hon. and learned gen tleman the Attorney-General said that when a mer chant ship entered a harbour of any country those on board conformed themselves to the law of that country, and if there were any offenders against its municipal laws on board it was competent for the authorities to enter the vessel and bring them to justice, and that the Chinese had an undoubted right so to deal with the Arrow if it had not been for the treaty. Now, the treaty had nothing whatever to do with the affair. Under the treaty it was impossible to give to vessels owned by Chinese a British register without committing a violation of that treaty. Under THE PRESS.' the ordinance of 1855, Chinese residents within the colony of Hong Kong were for the first time per mitted to apply for and obtain a colonial register renewable every year. A great difference existed between the treaty and the ordinance register. The registration under the treaty could only be of British ships; but a colonial registration might under the ordinance be given to Chinese residents who were also Crown lesses of lands : The registration under the treaty was not a temporary registration, for the house would observe the register was to be delivered to the proper officer of the Custom-house, and to be returned when the vessel sailed, but a registra tion under the ordinance was an annuul register—renew able annually, and forfeitable under certain conditions; and, therefore, it was perfectly clear that the registration under the ordinance was something totally distinct from that under the treaty. This whole matter stood upon the footing of the ordinance, and nut upon any other. (Cheers.) Now, what was the fair and legal effect of the ordinance? Undoubtedly the ordinance—supposing it was not opposed to imperial law—might confer rights as against the British, and a register might, perhaps, be en titled to respect from a foreign nation ; but he appre hended that the ordinance, and a registration under it, could confer no right whatever upon Chinese subjects as against the Chinese Government. That was the opinion of Lord Lyndhurst, who expressed himself very strongly and very clearly upon the subject. With respect to the supposed insult to the British flag, Sir Frederic Thesiger thought the entire con duct of our officials showed a predetermination to piek a quarrel with the Chinese : Sir J. Bowring chose to assume that there was a deli berate insult to the British flag by the Chinese. But Commissioner Yeh had never, from the beginning to the end, asserted anything which could induce Sir J. Bowring to come to that conclusion; on the contrary, lie had always written humbly and submissively, but always in sisted that the Arrow was not a British but a Chinese vessel ; and why Sir J. Bowring should assume that the Imperial Commissioner's impression was only a simu• lated one, and not a true one, why be should assume on the part of the Chinese a deliberate intention to insult the British flag, unless for the reasons already assigned, it was impossible to imagine. However, granting the insult, what ought to have been done? Why, as the lion. and learned member fur Tavistock had pointed out, the Queen's Advocate advised the Government what was all that would be requisite upon the occasion —viz., the seizure of an imperial junk. That was considered to be the sort ef reprisal which would satisfy the demands of the case. Flag for flag, junk for junk,—such was the law laid down the other night by the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle; but the seizure of a junk had already taken place. An insult had been offered to the British flag, and it was resolved to resent it by offering a similar insult to the Chinese flag. Accordingly, Commo dore Elliott seized what was supposed to be au imperial junk, but, according to the bitter complainings of Yell, it turned out to be a trading vessel. Yet the intention of the British authorities was to seize an imperial junk; and if, as was argued by those on the other side, the acts of the parties were to be judged by intention, no more ample retaliation could have been desired for the insult offered to the British flag. The matter might safely have been left there, or, at all events, further proceedings should have beeni suspended until the receipt of instructions from home. Sir W. F. WlLLtams opposed the motion upon the general ground of the overbearing tendency of all Asiatic nations, and of the necessity not only to assume but to sustain our superiority over them. Mr. SIDNEY lIERBEnT said he would in one sen tence state with whom he agreed upon this question, and on what points : In the first place. I agree with Sir J. Bowring that the .4rrow was not a British lorclia—(cheers)-- , -1 agree with Kennedy, the stripling from Belfast, in his statement that he knew that he was only nominally master, and that he believed that the ship was owned by a Chinaman. (Cheers.) I agree with Mr. Block, ofthe Board of Trade, who says that the ordinance under which these licences are issued is illegal. (Cheers.) I agree with Mr. Bridges, who was the acting Attorney-General fur Hong Kong, who says that the British subjects to whom these licences were issued were not British subjects at all. ( Loud laughter and cheering.) And, lastly, I agree with Mr. Parkes that if the Arrow had been legally a British vessel the reparation was far more than the occasion required. ( Renewed cheers.) He would not revert to the question of the Arrow, but he thought the whole system of colonial shipping licensing required the careful supervision .; of her Majesty's Government I see it. stated that the state of Hong Kong depends upon the prosperity of its coasting trade, and at the same time I see that the Colonial Treasurer tells us that the coasting trade depends upon the import of opium, &c., and when I recollect that we arc bound by treaty to %Ise all our authority, and, in fact, to do our utwst to suppress that tratlic—( Hear, hear)—there appears to me to be some inconsistency—(Hear, hear)—and when I hear of an insult to the English flag, I think it is time to look well into an ordinance by which the British flag is prostituted for wrongttil purposes. (Loud cheers ) The right hon. gentleman then came at once to 020 operations at Canton : It seems to have occurred to Mr. Varkes that the retri bution exacted for the Arruw was far beyond what the case required, and Sir J. Bowring appears to have cast about for some pretext to justify cc poet facto the satisfaction SATURDAY, he had demanded from the Chinese. I won't quote a despatch on the subject, but we all know for how long a time Sir John Bowring had been carrying on a species of controversy with the Foreign-otlice on the subject of access to Canton. Perhaps the house will allow me—it is rather curious—to show them what it was that imbued Sir John Bowring to say that the moment had wired, the auspi cious moment, for reopening the question. lit 1834 1 find this sentence in a letter of Sir John Itowring to the Earl of Clarendon. At that time we were engaged in war with Russia, and he says:— My reception within the city lea question which must for the present be made subordinate to more important matters. I did not think right to demand such a reception, as the enforcement would have required more time than I could now give to the matter; and— [ucw mark this}-1 could not safely have carried. on the controversy in the absence of the fleet. (Cheery.) Is not this an indication of what Sir John. liowring anticipated when he began the controversy?• (Hear, hear.) lie writes again in July, 1ti.55, and says:— It would be idle for the to use any language of displeasure mir . of menace, altogether helpless, as I am, in t h e absence of She fleet. (Hear, hear.) I am informed by the Hon. Captain K. Stewart, of her Majesty's frigate Nankin, that his peremptory inatrucuons are to proceed to the nortn, and to join the sulural. there. And, from a subsequent communication, it seems that Captain Stewart dues proceed to the north. Now, you see from this what was the meaning of an " auspicious " mo- ment. (Cheers.) Peace was declared here, t think, at the end of the mouth of March. It must have been known to Sir John Bowring in the beginning of July, and let mu just show how he stands in 1550 with regtril to that great assistance to peaceful controversy—the fleet. (A laugh.) In D 356 he had the largest fleet in the Canton river which had been there fur years. The admiral and the commo dore were both together. lie had got the Calcutta (liner), the Nankin (50), the if (50), the Sybille (44,,. the Encounter (14, screw), the Hornet (screw), the Cum.. nuthdel (screw), the Niger (screw), the Sampson (11, paddle), the Barraeuula (ii, paddle ), and the Bittern. (1. 4 „ sloop). Having got this great assistance, it occ urred to. Sir J. Bowring, to use his own expression, " that the cir cumstances are auspicious for requiring the fulfilment of treaty obligations as regards the city of Canton:" (Cheers.) Recollect that we bad originally acquired this• right of access by treaty, and that we hat not only never made use of that right, but had consented not to abandon,. but to waive it. We waived it fur two years. At the end of that time we did not reassert it—tha;, is, if we reasserted, it in words we took no steps to alter the status giw.. During the whole of this period every successive Secretary of State was showing hit visdoin by writing the most. peremptory instructions, as as apparently to restrain.tho exuberant activity of the Governor of Hong Kong. (A. laugh.) Lord Palmerston wrote two or three letters full of wisdom, cautioning Sir John Bowring; the- Earl of Malmesbury followed; then came the Duke of Newcastle, who sent Earl Grey's despatch ; and next the Earl or Clarendon, each of film writing more strongly than the others, and each urging this wan to give up his projeet„ which he seemed to dream of as the one thing by which the British power was to be consolidated. With regard to the Chinese, it was a question to which they attached peculiar importance, and clearly one upon which, when raised, by Sir John Bowring, Xeh could not definitely reply to without instructions, from Pekin Under such circumstances witat was the notice givietath him ? 'J he subject was mooted on the 24th of Octotion. A. letter was sent iron' the admiral to Yell on the 30t1t, The. commissioner =ewers is effect to that:—" You a= Tut., wrong; your Uoverament has waived this claim;' and hie makes a diplomatic answer to what was to hint a disagree able proposal, Admiral Seymour writes again. on. the hit of November, and, no answer being given,. 3:1:r. Varkes writes on the 3rd, that the demand is to be pressed irre spective of antecedents, and that if it is sot granted " We are going to resume liustihties." 'When ? Why, " this. morning." (Cheers.) It had been said that all these transactions had lja the general concurrence of Sir M. Seymour. Hat. how was it obtained Hut what he character.is e d as. false pretences employed by Sir John Bowring, who. had made, he said, a disingenuous use of ioakatches• from home.. In August, 1849, Lord Paltnerston ad dressed a minacious despatch to the Chinese authori ties.. With this was sent a peaceal44 letter to Sir• George Bonham containing the real instructions.. Sir John Bowling, to convert. Admiral Seymour,. sent him the one and retained the other:— I ask, was it an ingenuous preeseding on the part or Sir John liuwring—supposing 1 am right —to send the admiral the minacious &tow:tient, but not the letter which% conveyed the real instrwtions of the noble lard. (Lord Palmerston) to Mr., konhain ? (Cheers.), I have one sentence further. Sir J. Lowing states that in a commu nication dated the Oth of July, ItLlO,. written by Mr.. Haddington by order of the noble lord (1..0rd Palmerston ), to the chairman of the Londou„ Ling India, and China. Association, her Majesty's tiotternwent announced that had no intention to renounce the right of entering, the city of Canton. I tent to that despatch of the tlllt of: July, 18.19, and I had this passage : I am to state toyou, m reply, that her Majesty's Goxerntneut; have no intention to renounce the light of eutering, thu oily off Canton. Does it stop there? There Sir John Boning stops, but: there lam nut going to stop. Here is Use passage in i O6 . entirety lam to state to you, in reply, that b Majesty's Government have no intention to renounce the. rig lit of cotellog the city of Canton, although the) are nut umpired et present to resort to hostilities with Chloe in erder to enforce that right. (ii ear, hear.) her Majesty's Government are not ignorant that some inconvenience nay reault trout the adoption vi a policy of mode.-