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

MARCH 7, 1857. Vrouttrings in V arliament. HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY. LORD DERBY AND THE "PRESS " NEWSPAPER. The Earl of DERBY rose and said : Spy lords, it is not my custon to notice any misstatement or misrepresentation that appears in the public papers with regard to my public character ; and without departing in the slightest degree from that rule on the present occa sion I may be allowed, in justice not only to myself but to others, to refer to a report, wholly unauthorised, ofa meet ing which is said to have taken place on Friday last at my house, which did take place, but not at my house, and the statement of the proceedings at which, although un doubtedly it bears on the face of it evidence of having been furnished by some person who was either present or had heard what passed, is in many instances grossly inaccurate, and with regard to which 1 am represented not only as saying what I •lid not say, but as saying exactly the reverse of what I did say. My lords, lam not going to enter into any explanation of anything that passed there, and I only beg to refer to it now in order that it may not be supposed the report is correct, and that hereafter, if reference is ever made to that occasion, I may be permitted to avail myself of the protest I now make with regard to the accuracy of t his report. HOSTILITIES IN CHINA. Earl GRF.Y, in presenting a petition condemnatory of the bombardment of Canton, and praying for the recal o° Sir J. Bowring and Sir M. Seymour, wished to ask the President of the Council whether the war now being waged was carried on for the purpose of obtaining the admission of the British authotities into Canton, or for what other object? He also wished to know whether any reinforcements had been sent for, and whether such reinforcements had been ordered to go to Canton ? Earl GRANVILLE replied : have to state with regard to the intelligence from China, that no further operations have taken place, except those necessitated by self-defence, but that the Chinese have offered rewards for the assassination of British sub jects and incendiarism in Canton. It is impossible to say that there is at the present time any prospect of an altera- tion in the state of affairs that now exists. But at the same time there is no interruption whatever of our com mercial relations with the other four ports. Under these circumstances it is impossible to say that there is any change in our present position. It is absolutely necessary not only for our interests, but for those of foreigners, that we should not appear to recede st Canton, as inconvenient results might follow, not only there, but at the other four ports, where our relations are satisfactory. With regard to reinforcements, they have been sent to Hong Kong. One regiment was sen; three weeks ago. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY. 81R .7. M'NEILL AND COLONEL TULLOCIR. Mr. J. EWART gave notice of hia intention to move an address to her Majesty, praying that the services of Sir J. M'Neill and Colonel 'l'ulloch might be sub stantially rewarded. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHP.QUER, in answer to Mr. Macartney, said, he believed that the report o! the Civil Service Commission would be laid upon the table before Easter. REDUCTION OF THE ESTIMATES. Mr. GLADSTONE gave notice of his intention to move, on the question that the house resolve itself into a committee of supply, a resolution that, in order to secure to the country that relief from taxa tion which it justly expects, it is necessary to revise and reduce the expenditure of the State. NEW INDIAN LOAN. Mr. V. SMITII, in reply to Mr. Otway, said, a com munication had been sent to him from the Governor- General of India with respect to the 51. per cent. loan. That interest would he guaranteed for fifteen years. The loan would be applied in the usual way, and part of it, therefore, would be devoted to public works. HOSTILITIES AGAINST CHINA. The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, who observed that Mr.Labou. chere and the Attorney General, in opposing the motion, had adopted widely differing lines of argu ment : Mr. Labouchere rested his case upon the legality of the Colonial Ordinance, while Sir R. Bethel! maintained that the Colonial Ordinance had nothing ac all to do with the question, for that the whole point depended upon the construction of the treaty ; and the Lord Advocate differed from both, and held, not that the character of the ship determined her country, but that the flag she flew determined her character. Apart from all these legal consider ations, the main issue of the question was whether the war was just in its origin and righteous in its continuance:— Assuming that the British authorities were right in everything which they did with respect to this vessel, as suming that she was a British •essel duly registered, let the house look at the disproportion between the offence and the chastisement ! Was the law of nations really so stupid and so detestable a code that it exacted the blood of men as satisfaction fur an offence of this description ? Did it point at no intermediate step ? What was the inter- Mediate course which the Queen's Advocate recommended ? THE PRESS. Reprisals. And what was the difference between reprisals and war? Reprisals were made manente pace, but war introduced a totally different state of things, and he ven tured to say that reprisals and not war were the proper remedy for the wrung which was alleged to have been com mitted. He contended also that the papers before the house showed that full satisfaction had been afforded, and that it was indefensible upon any principle of law, of justice, or of humanity to make war for the punish ment of a nation apart from reparation : He begged attention to an authority upon this point, which would not be disputed. In the famous answer to the Prussian mettorbil, which Montesyneu said was never replied to, this passage occurred : The law of nations, founded upon justice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage, does not allow of reprisals except in case of violent injuries, directed or supported by the State, and justice absolutely denied in re minims dubid by all the tribunals, and afterwards by the prince. The question arose, then, was this a violence sup ported by the State, and for which all reparation had been denied? The Attorney. General had deprecated the attacks made upon Sir J. Bowring for not under standing a question of law respecting which Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Wensleydale were at variance; but did the house reflect upon the position of the Chinese? If the (point of law was so doubtful that the most eminent lawyers of England differed in opinion as to its construction, in God's name, and in the name of humanity, said the hon. member, why was Canton bombarded? He contended that our proceedings were wholly indefensible : What were the admitted facts of the case ? Here was a Chinese-built, a Chinese bought, and a Chinese•owned vessel, having a pirate on board, without a register cog nisable by the English courts of justice, and with a British flag, which had been purchased for 1,000 dols. She was boarded by the Chinese authorities, who took off ten of the crew, but neither touched the property in the ship nor injured any of the persons who were on board. After this, upon the representation of the British authorities, the men were sent back, and full expla nations offered by Yeh : reparation was in fact made. And would any lawyer maintain that under the cir cumstances reprisals were justificatory? He could see no evidence of mala fides, or of intentional insult, that could justify hostilities ; and yet the Britisl , . Plenipotentiary, being of opinion that the honour of the country was not suffi6ently appeased, empowered the admiral to bombard one of the most populous cities of the world : He had refrained from citing authorities for every posi tion he had laid down ; but there was one authority which he would read. It was the expression of opinion against war by one of the most eminent men and greatest urists— the most learned Lord Chancellor Bacon. He said : The cause of war ought to be just, and the justice of the case ought to be evident, not obscure—not scrupulous. And be gave this admirable reason : For, by the consent of laws in capital cases, the evidence must be full and clear. Then, if it must be so where one man's life is in question, what shall we say of war which is a sentence of death upon many. Was the evidence in this case not obscure and not scrupu- lous? Was the evidence which divided the judges in the House of Lords so clear as to justify a passing of sentence of death upon many ? If it was not, they must divide for the motion of the hon. member for the West Hiding He could not but remember that there was an order of men in the other house whose mission was peace upon earth. (Loud and continued cheers.) He could not but help re• membering that which, perhaps, the house had forgotten, that by the order of the ecclesiastical law, and by the rule of the other House of Parliament, they were not allowed to vote on a question of blood where one man's life was at issue. (Loud cheers.) He could not help remembering that in the case of Lord Cardigan they left the house in a body, because the law said that they should not vole on questions affecting human life. (Cheers.) What apology, then, could be found for those who had recorded a vote which would amount to a sentence of death upon many ? The only conclusion to which he could arrive on the pre- mines before him was, that by the law of his own country, by international law, and by all those questions of human justice that should guide our conduct among men, this war with China was impolitic, unjust, and unblest in its con tinuance. (Loud cheers.) Sir G. GREY, in opposing the motion, entered into an energetic vindication of the British representa tives in China. He described the services and bore testimony to the talents displayed in their several departments by Consul Parkes, Admiral Seymour, and Sir J. Bowring. Adverting in detail to the late proceedings at Canton, he vindicated the course adopted by the authorities on the spot, declaring that the Home Government, upon a deliberate review of the circumstances and in consideration of all the im portant interests which might have been compro mised by any symptom of weakness or indecision, had given their cordial approbation to the acts of the commissioner at Hong Kong and his colleagues, and were ready to assume the full responsibility for the consequences that had ensued. Defending the con duct of Sir J. Bowring at the expense of Admiral Seymour, the Home Secretary attempted to show, by references to the published despatches, that every transaction accomplished during the late disturbance had been undertaken by common consent of all the functionaries on the spot, and after fre quent conferences with Mr. Parkes and Sir Michael 221 Seymour. The whole charge against the commis sioner had, he maintained, been founded either on misarprehension or misrepresentation. Mr. ROBERTSON, speaking with the experience of a lengthened residence in China, pointed out that as the Chinese were only permitted to own and sail junks, there could have been no mistake on their part as to the foreign nationality of the lorcha. Then arose the question of animus; and, from his experience of the Chinese authorities, he was convinced that the insult was premeditated. Why, their very act sup ported this view. One man on board was suspected as the father of a pirate, and so they seize the entire crew, with two exceptions ! Mr. Robertson then gave several instances of the overbearing brutality to Europeans of the Cantonese, irvisted upon the right of entry—not because it would benefit us much, but because the exclusion degraded us in the eyes of the Chinese—and finally implored the house to support Sir John Bowring, for the sake of uur present posi tion and future relations with the Cninese. Sir J. PAKINGTON thought Sir G. Grey had been altogether unsuccessful in his attempt to defend Sir John Bowring. He regretted that the Government did not repudiate the acts of Sir John and his co. otf►cials, and at once recal them ; had heard, he said, no reason assigned for the approbation they had received, except the necessity of upholding servants of the Crown ; and he protested against the doctrine that they should be supported at all risks. Party speaking had been much deprecated in the course of this debate, and the Opposition had been accused of strong party feeling upon this ques tion. This imputation was most unjust, though he was ready to ack'►owledge that in the course of this debate speeches were made which he, for one, heard with great regret : The hon. and learned member for Devonport stated that, in obedience to his convictions, he should support the motion of my hon. friend the member for the West Riding, but if the motion had proceeded from this side of the house he should have given a different vote. An hon. friend of mine, the member for West Norfolk, has made a very opposite declaration. He says he concurs in the views expressed by the hon. member for the West Riding. He sees the force of this motion, but he shall be governed I.v considerations altogether extraneous to the subject of debate before us, and, under the influence of totally dif- ferent feelings, he shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for the West Riding. Mr. BENTINCK : I beg pardon. What I said was, T should be guided by other considerations than the words of the motion. I never said T should be guided by other con siderations upon the question before the house. (Hear, hear.) _ _ . Sir J. PAKINGTON : My hon friend cannot deny that he stated he felt the force and justice of the motion, and be has now repeated that he shall be guided in his vote by other considerations. I mean no disrespect to either the hon. and learned member for Devonport or my hon. friend the member for West Norfolk, when I say that I hear such declarations with the deepest regret, and that I think such declarations can only tend to lower the character of this house. (Cheers.) But when the hon. and learned Attorney• General or the Secretary of State for the Colonies says that those who are opposing the Government are in fluenced and guided by party considerations, I think a more unjust or more unfounded charge was never made. Declining, like Sir G. Grey, to discuss the legal points, but assuming that the lorcha was a British vessel, he believed, he said, that the verdict of the world would condemn the revenge taken for the act of the Chinese authorities as unmeasured and ex cessive : The Secretary of State for the Home Department has this evening told the house that we have borne hardly on Sir J. Bowring, and treated him with harshness and un• fairness; but I entreat the house to reflect that the right hon. gentleman never touched on this point. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Bowring was charged with falsehood, or the most barefaced contradictions, and if his character is to stand well before the world, it is absolutely necessary that the matter should be explained. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary, while complaining that Sir J. Bowring had been treated badly, never even adverted to that accusation. ( Hear.) lam sorry to say that .h accusations against Sir J. Bowring are not limited to ih s instance. A question arose some two or three years ago about the collection of the duties at Shanghai, after the riot which had occurred there. Sir J. Bawring had occasion to interfere with respect to the collection of these duties. He was in correspondence with the Foreign office in this country, and was charged by the Chamber of Commerce at Shanghai, and the charge was transmitted to this country, with having deliberately misrepresented the instructions he received from the Foreign•ofce, and thereby obtaining the consent of the merchants at Shanghai to an arrangement to which otherwise they would not have given their con sent. I hold in my hand a report of an interview which in 1854 the East India and China Association had with Lord Clarendon, and I find in it this statement:— Mr. Gregson read to his lordship a resolution this day passed, to the effect that SR John Bowring's proceedings had lost him the confidence of the merchants engaged in the China trade ; and praying that in the approaching revision of the treaty her Majesty's Government be represented by some person of known experience and discretion. Here we have a proof of the estimation in which Sir J. Bowling was held by the mercantile body connected with China ; and it affords ground for concluding that the Go vernment would have acted with more discretion if they had not kept our interests at China so long in the hands of Su J. Bowring. (Hear, hear.)