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

FEBRUARY 28, 1857. The Commons' Enclosure Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. FITZGERALD obtained leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to bank ruptcy and insolvency in Ireland. HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUURSDAY. LAW OF LIBEL. Lord CAMPBELL moved for a select committee to consider whether the privilege now enjoyed by re ports of proceedings of courts of justice may be safely exteilded to reports of proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament, and of other assemblies and public meetings. Lord WENSLEYDALE briefly supported the motion, considering that the present anomalous state of the law on this most important question rendered in quiry into its principles necessary. HOSTILITIEi IN CHINA. The adjourned debate on the Earl of Derby's motion was then resumed by The Earl of CARNARYON, who pointed out the injustice committed by this country in enforcing the principles of international law when those laws applied in our own favour, and refusing to recognise them when their application justified the conduct of the Chinese. This had been the case in the question of allegiance. While this country claimed that no employment in a foreign country, no matter how long its duration, could weaken the allegiance of a British subject to his Sovereign, we expected to relieve Chinese shipping and their crews from the operation of their own laws by a mere letter of British registry. Lord ST. LEONARDS said it was supposed that the ordinance gave to any persons who took a certificate of registry all the powers and privileges which per tained to British ships. But this was to claim for the colonial ordinance a power to alter the established laws of England, and he, as a constitutional lawyer, would say that for such purpose it was of no more value than waste paper. He contended that the ordinance never claimed to give the privileges of British ships, but merely the right of trading back wards and forwards between Hong Kong and China; so that that law of which they had heard so much was in reality beside the question. Lord WENSLEYDALE considered that the Colonial Ordinance was perfectly legal, though, even it its legality could not be established in a court of justice, the Chinese at least had no right to dispute its validity by capturing an English vessel and insulting the English flag. The Earl of MALMESBURY thought the question was one both of policy and morality. Sir J. Bow ring actually admitted the vessel had no right to the British protection or the British flag. That flaw in the indictment, if he might so Corm it, Sir John Bowring had, however, concealed not only from the Chinese, but, as he (Lord Malmesbury) believed, from Sir Michael Seymour, for that officer had spoken of bombarding the town in consequence of the Chinese refusing to make reparation for this insult to the English flag. Could he, as an officer and a gentleman, have so written if he was aware of the fact that the Arrow had no right to carry the British flag, and had no claim on the British protec tion ? He charged Sir John Bowring with want of capacity and discretion, and considered he was a most unfit rerson to remain in China. The quarrel would add a century of rancour to the bad feeling which had before existed between England and China. The very morality of the country was at stake; and as a Christian people they should reprobate the acts of their officials at Canton. The Earl of ALBEMARLE contended that the con struction of the lorcha proved that she was not a Chinese vessel, add that consequently the Chinese authorities had no pretence for boarding her. He believed the people of China were most anxious to trade with them ; but their Government had a far different desire, and would sacrifice the interests of their country if they could only drive the English from their shores. Forbearance had but in creased the insolence of the officials at Canton ; and to have submitted to further insult would be virtually to abandon the footing which England had secured there. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought, in the pre sent instance, the conduct of this country towards the Chinese was unjustifiable. Ho firmly believed that the insult to our flag, such as it was, was not intended; and, if their lordships believed that such was the case, did they not feel that a light offence had been heavily atoned ? The Chinese people had been alienated, their forts overturned, fire and sword carried into the bosom of a peaceful city. Was not that enough to satisfy the offended dignity of this country, to appease even Dr. Bowring? On Dr. Bowring a f.yarful responsibility rested; that responsibility was now accepted by the Government ; but he entreated their lordships' house not to share it. There would be no peace for China while Dr. Bowling remained near Canton, and he ought to be recalled, were it only for his having stated with regard to the 4rrow that which when ho stated it he THE PRESS. believed to bo untrue. The losses which would result to this country and India from this war of Dr. Bowing it was almost impossible to estimate. All our influences in China would be overturned—our efforts towards the conversion of the people entirely neutralised. How, indeed, could we attempt to teach them a religion of benevolence and humanity when our Minister was breaking the command ments—committing murder in an unjust war—not telling the truth of his neighbour, and gratify ing his covetousness at the expense of the suf ferings of mankind? He hoped the decision of their lordships' house would protect them from an act like this, an act which was at once a folly and a crime. -------- Earl GnaNvn.LE, earnestly deprecating the tone adopted by the last speaker as most unjust to a use ful public servant, and unworthy the dignity of a grave and most serious discussion, on the part of the Government accepted the entire responsibility of Dr. Bowring's proceedings : The Government, not hastily, but after due considera tion—after weighing the facts of the case—after having consulted as to the legality of the acts and the future con sequences of disowning whet has taken place, have come to the resolution of entirely supporting their subordinate abroad, and in so doing they take upon themselves the whole responsibility of t he acts of the three English repre sentatives of the Government at Canton. Lord Granville then proceeded to review the whole question of the seizure of the Arrow, with the cir cumstances attending it, maintaining that the Eng lish flag was flying at the time she was taken and was hauled flown by the Chinese, and that the con duct of Sir John Bowring had been guided through out by the strict law of the Colonial Ordinance and the supplementary treaty of 1h43. Had he acted otherwise, or by other rules, what would then have been said ? Would not the Government have been charged with following the principles of the Man chester school, and preferring the paltry interests of comme►ce to the honour of the British flag ? The Bishop of OXFORD condemned the conduct of Sir John Bowring in the strongest terms, and reprobated the conduct of a great Christian nation like England spreading the horrors of war among a weak and unoffendi , ig people. He entreated the house to pause ere it gave the weight of its great authority to support an act so unjust and wrong as this. It' they did so let them recollect that they were going against a Power which took its own time for vindicating eternal justice, and which never allowed a wrong to pass uuavenged, and a Power which could find, if need were, in the very weakness of China sufficient elements to abase and rebuke the lawless oppression of this country. Their lordships then divided, when there appeared for the motion— Content—Present .. .. .. 53 Proxies .. .. .. 57 -110 Not Content—Present .. .. 71 Proxies Majo►ity against the motion Their lordships then adjourned. 75 -140 HOUSE OF COM MONS.—THratsDAY. HOSTILITIES WITH CHINA. Mr. COBDEN moved the following resolution ! That this house has heard with concern of the conflicts which have occurred between the British and Chinese authorities in the Canton river; and, without expressing an opinion as to the extent to which the Government of China may have afforded this country cause of complaint respecting the non fulfilment of the treaty of 1843, this house considers that the papers which have been laid upon the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the vio lent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow ; and that a select committee he appointed to in- quire into the state of our commercial relations with China. Adverting to the extent to which the national con science, he said, had been moved upon this question, and the large amount of sympathy felt with reference to the object of his motion, and premising that he had no motive but to arrive at a just decision, Mr. Cobden commenced with a brief narrative of the facts consequent upon the boarding of the lorcha Arrow, ou the Bth of October, up to the date of the last ad • vices ; and asked the house to inquire how all this devastation and warfare began, and who were the authors, and be asked it, he said, in defence of our own honour. We had never before acquired the cha racter of bullies, but he had observed of late a ten dency to adopt one policy to a weak and another to a strong power. He co itrasted the conduct of the British authorities at Hong Kong with that which would have been pursued, he said, had the Govern ment we dealt with been at Washington and the transaction bad taken place at Charleston. lie cited the opinion expressed by Lord Lyndhurst, that upon the principles of international law the Chinese Governor was right with reference to the Arrow, which was in no respect a British vessel ; and he urged that the whole proceeding was illegal on our part. Upon the whole, he conscientiously believed 201 that there had been a preconceived design to pick a quarrel with the Chinese, for which the whole world would cry shame upon us. With respect to the papers recently laid before the house, he looked upon them as a garbled record of trum pery complaints against the Chinese. It was an insult, he said, to bring down such a book in ordt r to make out a case for Lord Clarendon. On the other hand, he read letters from Sir John Davis and Admiral Cochrane testifying to the civility and inof fensive habits of the Chinese and to the overbearing conduct of our own countrymen in China, with whom Sir John said he found it more difficult to deal than with the Chinese; and Mr. Cobden suggested rea sons why this was likely to be the case—that Eng lishmen carried with them a haughty demeanour and an inflexible bearing towards the natives of other countries. He strongly condemned the vast preten sions put forth by mercantile men in England, who demanded concessions from China in terms which he characterised as downright selfish violence. As to the admission of foreigners into Canton, he was of opinion that in the treaty of 1843 it was contem plated that foreigners should have free access to Canton ; but it would be found from the despatches of Sir George Bonham and Lcrd Palmerston in this blue-book that there were the best possible grounds for not persevering in this demand, the Cantonese being fierce, ungovernable, and hostile to English men. In the last place, Mr. Cobden contended that Sir John Bowring had not only violated the principles of international law, but had acted contrary to his in-tructions and even to express directions from his Government, and that this miserable squabble might lead to complications with other nations and plunge us into an international war. Mr. LABOUCHERE said there was one fact of importance on the face of the papers—namely, that these transactions had taken place, not in an obscure corner of the world, but before the great community of merchants, who, he affirmed, had been libelled by the language employed towards them by Mr. Cobden. The French and American merchants had coincided with ours in their view of the conduct of the Chinese authorities, and Mr. Labouchere read a letter from the United States' Chief Superintendent of Trade, condemning the character and proceedings of the Canton authorities. He believed, he added, that ft r some time past the relations of the Chinese autho rities at Canton with every European Government had become so thoroughly unsatisfactory as to be at length absolutely intolerable, and that the general opinion was that, at the price of a temporary inter ruption of commercial transactions, the Canton authorities should be restrained from setting aside treaty obligations and committing acts of violence. Mr. Labouchere insisted upon the British character of the lorcha, and that, when the outrage was com mitted, the Governor Yeti knew ho was doing wrong. He denied that the British functionaries bad evinced any want of forbearance, and that Consul Parkes had, as Mr. Cobden alleged, endeavoured to pick a quarrel with the Chinese ; his proceedings, on the contrary, had been gentle and moderate. As to the right of entry into Canton, this had been conceded by treaty, and, although it bad been postponed from time to time, it had never been abandoned by the British Government, and he was not satisfied that it was an improper step on the part of Sir John Bow ring, under the circumstances, to take this oppor tunity to press this stipulation. We were not, he observed, at war with the Court of Pekin, but with the local Government at Canton, and he hoped that the result of these hostilities would be to place the relations of Europe with China upon a safer and more satisfactory footing. Sir B. LYTTON did not think that Mr. Lsbouchere had succeeded in giving a very satisfactory reply to the powerful arguments of Mr. Cobden. Mr. La bouchere had failed to prove that by international law, since the Treaty ef Nankin, the regulations of the Government of Hong Kong could confer upon the lorcha a British character. Neither colonial ordinances nor Acts of Parliament could have the effect of international law upon other nations : I say that this vessel, belonging to Chines& subjects, manned by Chinese, and emplo3ed in Chinese waters, did not, at the date of the treaty, belong to the English nation. If you chose to make it so by a local ordinance, Ihat might bind your own subjects, but would not acquire the force of international law, and would not bind the Chinese, if they had never agreed to it, which they never did. This principle is clearly laji down by Wheaton ' and other writers on international law ; and it follows front this, as clearly as one problem of Euclid follows from another, that if after a treaty has been concluded, you, as one of the contracting parties, alter your existing law so as to affect the Chinese, the other contracting parties, your alterations will be binding oh your own sitbjects, but that it will require the legislative power of China to give these laws force and effect in that country. But assuming that the lorcha was an English vessel, granting that the British colours were flying at the time a notorious pirate was seized on board, was the outrage committed so gross as to justify so terrible a revenge ? Obser►e. it is not a question of who waa right and who was wrong, but whether the Chinese were so outrageously ' •