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

were legally right, the policy they pursued was such as ought to have been followed in the circumstances in which they stood. With respect to the question oflaw, he entered on it with a great deal of diffidence. Great authorities had pronounced against the view which he humbly took. Great names had been quoted in that house against it, and it was with a'l humility that a man ought to feel in such circumstances that he ventured to state his opinion ; but at the same time he thought it right to say that, giving all due weight to these great legal authorities, the opinion he had formed was one which he held without much hesitation. He thought it could be demonstrated from the proceedi gs before them that there was no true ground for saying that any prin ciple of international law had been transgressed by the authorities at Hong Kong. He was anxious to get the house out of the region of generalities which surrounded the subjt &, because he believed it would be found that the only safe way in which the legal question could be sifted was to deal with it in connection with the facts as they had taken place in China ; for a good many of the general propositions which had been laid down might be more or less ti ue, while they had oo application to the facts out ut which the whole question had arisen. The facts were shor:ly theze : —Alter the treaty of 1842, and down to 1855, a large population had grown up in the colony of Hong Kong, and when these proceedings com menced there were about 60,000 Chinese in the colony. He did not say they had ceased to be subjects of China, or had lost their allegiance, but they were living under our law and under our protection. In virtue of the powers which he had as the colonial Governor, Sir John Bow ring allowed these Chinese to become possessed of Crown lands in the colony. He did not say that was naturali sation to the fullest extent, but it was a step towards it, and was in accordance with law. (Hear, hear.) A civil war broke out in China, and there existed a great deal of smuggling along the coast. For the double pur pose of knowing to whom the coasting vessels belonged, and enabling them to attack with more effect the emue gling trade, an ordinance was passed in March, 1855, under which any Chinese holding property in Crownlands in Hong Kong who chose to apply might, on certain con ditions, have their vessels registered, and be entitled to use the British flag. Was that ordinance a dead letter ? Was it a thing done in a corner ? Or was it unknown to the Chinese? In point of fact, lorchas were registered by hundreds, and it became notorious that the coasting trade of China was almost exclusively carried on by these torches sailing under the British flag. In S-pt., 1855, the Chinese seized four lorchas bearing the British flag ; Sir J. ho wring remonstrated, and pointed out t, them that by the treaty they were not entitled to seize those vessels. On that occasion the Chinese made no complaint aeout the treaty ; they never pretended they were igno rant of it, for, indeed, a copy of it was sent to them, and without the least remonstrance the lorchai were restored. (Hear ) It was a principle of international law that if a nation was ie posses ion of and exercised an alleged right which had not been disputed, whatever the merits or grounds of that right might be, the nation was en titled to continue in possession of it without interrup tion till a remonstrance was made against it. That was an elementary principle of international law laid down by Grotius and all the great authorities. (Hear.) In such a case no country was justified in taking the law int.) its own hands. They were bound in the first in stance to remonstrate, and if remonstrance failed, then they might act To take an example : —There was an island near Bushire that formerly belonged to the French. We had lately landed troops there, and supposing they were to remain for two years, that might give us no right to it ; but still the French would not be entitled, without first remonstrating, to take steps for the reco very of the island, or to land a body of troops for that purpose. A nation in such a case was entitled to main tain its position until steps had been taken to show that it was wrong. How could the affairs of nations be car ried on on any other principle than that ? (Hear ) Of course, if the element of bad faith were once admitted the argument did not apply, for against a fraud there always existed a right to a remedy, but if the nation acted in good faith, then no violence could be proceeded with in the first instance to interrupt its possession. If, therefore, he did not care to stop and inquire to what extent we might or might not have had power to license these lorchas, the cause must be obvious. These lorchas were licensed for the benefit of the Chinese themselves (ironical cheers)—and a proof of this was that the licene2s were very extensively used. (Hear.) They were employed in order to enable us more effectually to put down smug gling on the coast, and that we might be able to distin guish between those who were licensed traders and those who were smugglers. But, whether that were so or not, it was plain that the Chinese never imagined the ordinance was against them, for they allowed the sys tem to go on for two years and a-half without remon strance. (Hear, hear.) But what were the objections that bad been stated And here he must say that mat ters bad been confounded which were entirely and es sentially different. One objection was that no country was entitled to grant such licence to the ship of another nation ; and another was that the ordinance of 1855 went entirely in the face of our own municipal law. Now, the second of these objections appeared to him to have nothing to do with the question. The Chi nese had nothing whatever to do with our municipal law. If the ordinance was justified by' the law of na tions, it was clear that they could have to right to say they objected to it because they had a repugnance to our Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. Was there to be no force in the orders of our colonial Governments so far as regarded foreign nations, unless the latter were first satisfied upon every question of law that might arise upon them in this country ? (Hear.) How many ques tions might not in this way be raised ? The appointment of the governor of Hong Kong himself might be liable to objection. There might be irregularity in sending him out, and they might question his powers. So also of many other mattere. lie contended, therefore, that the Chinese bad nothing whatever to do with the passing of the Mer chant Act. But the question had been put on another ground that was perfectly intelligible. It was ar gued that it was impossible to give privileges to foreign vessels as against their own country. That was tantamount to saying that it was impossibl e t o regis ter a vessel owned by a foreigner. Now, it was of course lawful for a nation to register a ship in any form it' pleased ; but it was said that, granting the possession of a register, the vessel could not b e ca ll e d a B r iti s h vesse l, because thel owner owed allegiance to another country. Was that correct, even as regarded our own practice ? In the existing Merchant Shipping Act it was enacted that not only natural born subjects of this country might be the owners of registered vessels, but persons born in other countries might also, provided they had let' ers of naturali cation, and took the oath of allegiance. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Bat did the taking of the oath of allegiance to the British Sovereign prevent them from remaining un der allegiance to their native countries? If the Chinese of Hong Kong took the oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria, did they cease to be Chinese subjects! Hon. gentlemen opposite declared exactly the reverse, and he said the same. The question of letters of naturalisation was raised the other day, when it appeared that, although a man might be naturalised here, that did not release him from his allegiance to the country in which he was born. But if we registered a ship under our Merchant Shipping Act, and a British merchant chartered it and took a British crew, would we allow our flag to be pulled down by any nation in the world under the pretence that the original owner was a foreigner ? (Hear, hear.) When we once registered a vessel and used it as a British vessel, would we net protect it against all the world ? Suppose that when we were engaged in hostilities with Russia a neutral Power had fired upon our flag, under the pre t. xt that the owner of the vessel was originally a native of that country, would we have put up with that insult or permitted it to go to r )(Ire-tied ? Certainly not. The true principle was, that it lay with Britain to say what a British ship should be—that it belonged to each coun try to say to what kiral of vesselDts authority should be given. If any other country thought it had a right to complain it had the power of remonstrance • but, in the first instanc e , it l ay w i th Britain to say what should and what should not be entitled to the protection of her flag. (Hear.) The enforcement of that principle was a boon, not an injury to the Chinese themselves. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition). lie repeated that the facts of these lorchas carrying a British flag, so far from being against the interests of the Chinese, was, on the contrary, a protection to the Chinese and to our selves against the pirates and smugglers who infested those seas. (Hear, bear.) Such was the view ke was inclined to take of the international question, and it ap peared to him that the first ground was conclusive— viz., that when we were found in the undisputed exer cise of a right for a series of years the Chinese were not entitled to take the law into their own ban's, (Hear.) That being the state of .matterz, the Arrow, with the British flag flying, came into the waters of Canton, was boarded by a party of Chinese officials—eudently not by accident or chance, but in a manner which showed that their proceedings had been precon c_7ted—and the crew were cirri d off. The first question was that justifiable by the law of nations, on the pretence that our Government had no power to pass the ordinance? Looking at the position io which maters stood, and the use which had been made of the ordi nance without remonstrance o r quest i on, h e sa id that the Chinese were hound l ritiins:he first instanc e t o ma k e a representation to the disputed d th t o h r e ities if their ground of action was that they re f 3 or our power of legality of the re- Passing the ordinance. But the real question lay here —was that proceeding on n the part of the Chinese in good faith or not question froms7l:ild be difficult for the house to settle that &p in a e pers ; . b i ut while on the one hand the conduct of the be immaterial if proceeding from accident or mis s t e a m ke ig it t became on the other most important if proved the result of intention or design. If the British flag was flyin g they knew the fact, and the y also kn ew that the vesisnegl was sailing under British authority. Under these cir cumstances their course was simple. Gilgit Parkes was living on the spot, and, instead of sending two mandarins to ea-ry off the crew at once, it was their duty to apply to him, in order to ascertain whether the vessel was really under British protection. Why did they not do that ? Was it that no remonstrance had been made before ? Not in the least. There had been a remonstrance in the previous September on the same subject, and that remonstrance had been successful. Was it that they were ignorant of what the vessel was ? He rather thought not. (Hear, hear.) He thought there were plain indication s in the correepondeuce that they knew the hi-t wy of the vessel. lie had no (Inuht that their proceedings were no mistake at all. They knew perfectly well the circumstances in which the vessel was ; their proceedings were designed, and were taken for the purpose of showing that they did not in tend to recognise the British flag under such circum stances. If th y were not boand to recok nice the British flag, they were at least bound to say so. Talk of civi heed nations ! Any civilised nation, if it disputed a right which we bad been exercising for a long time, would in the first instance remonstrate with our repre sentatives. No civilised nation would issue proclama tions offering a reward for the heads of its adversaries. (Hear, hear.) China was not entitled to be put in the category of nations with which it was possible to deal TH E SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENINIG, FEWRUARY 28, 1857. according to strict international law. He now came to •' a part of the c see, which he thought had called forth re marks a great deal too strong—he meant the letters in which Sir J. Bowring referred to the fact of the Expiry of the register. He should assume for the present that the view he had st sted of international law was correct. Bat it turned out that the register of the Arrow, having been granted in October, 1855, had expired about a week before the seizure by the Chinese officers. Sir J. Bow ring wrote a letter, in which he stated that— " The question presents two important inquiries —first, the right of the vessel in question, and second, the conduct of the Chinese authorities. It appears, on examination, that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag ; the licence to do so expired on the 27th of Sept., from which period she has not been entitled to protection. You will send back the register to be delivered to the Colonial-office. But the Chinese had no knowledge of the expiry of the licence, nor do they profess that they had any other ground r interference than the supposition that the owner is not a British subject. That, however, is a question for this Government, who granted the register, sad it is clear that the Chinese authorities have violated the 9th article of the supplementary treaty, which requires that all Chinese m tl faisauts iu British ships shall be claimed through the Bri tish authorities." Tho honourable member for the West Riding hail used very strong language in regard to this letter, calling it " the most flagitious public document" that he ever saw. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He did not know that he was wise in trying to stem the torrent ofindignation which the remarks of the honourable member had ex cited against the letter. Perhaps, being a lawye r , h e might be accused of sharp practice ; out, having read the letter carefully, having formed an impression re garding it entirely different from that of the honour able member for the West Riding, and believing that what it meant to say did not savour of duplicity, or secrecy, or false dealing, but amounted to the simple as sertion of a very pertinent truth, he shouli be ashamed of himself if he declined to state frankly what his impre- sion of the letter was. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Bowries said that, "the Chinese bad no knowledge of the expiry of the licence, nor did they profess that they had any other ground for interference than the supposition that the owner was not a British subject." Did that mean, "Don't tell the Chinese—don't let them know how good a case they have—it is lucky they were not aware that legally we had no means of resisting them ?" Not at all. Sir J. Bowring meant to say that when the Chinese boarded the Arrow and tore down tur fl ig they in tended to insult us—( ronical cheers from the Opposition) —and that it made no difference as far as the insult was concerned, whether the register had expired or not. (Cries of " Oh, oh !" and cheers ) Would any hon ourable and learned member venture to say that it was not a princyle of international law that if a man committed an outrage upon another without a kno ledge of facts which might justify it he was liable to reprisals as if those facts had no existence ? Teke the case which he put a while ago. He believed that in America there was some limitation to the period within which a vessel could carry a national flag. When the Chinese fired upon the American ships, believing them to be American ships, with the American ensign flying at the masthead, could we imagine our high-spirited brethren on the other side of the Atlantic would have forborne to make immediate reprisals if it had bean alleged that, unknown to the Chinese, the liberty of carrying the American flag had expired ? (Hear, hear. ) Was that to be the rule of those who represented Britain abroad ? Were they to stop before they re sented an insult, in order to discover a ground which those insulting them could never have discovered ? The very essence of an insult consisted in the animus of the person who offered it, and he was perfectly ready to adopt Sir J. Bowring's opinion, that it made no differ ence as to the course to be followed in demanding re - dress for the insult that the licence of the lorcha had expired if the Chinese had been intent upon insu!ting the British flag. He quite agreed ton with Sir J. Bow ring, that it rested with the Government which had granted the register to determine whether or not the registewernained in force ; and if the vessel were bona fide returning to her port where the register might be renewed, but owing to a stress of weather were detained, s s that the licence expired in the interval, it was for the Government to decide whether she was still entitled to be regarded as a registered vessel. That was Sir J. Bowring's view, and he said, " The Chinese did not know at the time that the licence had expired, and if they had known it it was a matter for our consideration, and not for theirs." Thus stood the case, and although ' it was easy to say that it was a matter of small moment, that we were making a mountain of a molehill, and that we were going to war about a trumpery I ntcha, yet, if there was a de!iberate insult offered to the British flag, what ought Sir J. Bowring to have done? No doubt, the fact of the expiry of the license placed him in a difficulty, because it enabled the Chinese authorities, who had acted upon totally different grounds, to raise a quibble on the point, but he (the Lord-Advocate) contended that great latitude was to be allowed under such circumstances to those who were on the spot, and he could not forget that while people in this country were discussing the conduct of our plenipotentiary abroad that conduct had met with the approbation of every person, not a Chinese, who was upon the spot. It had been approved by the British admiral, by the French admiral, and by the Ame ricans. If the French and the Americans thought that we bad beers precipitate they would have said so ; but the fact was, that there was no one who was cognisant of the proceedings as they arose who did not regard the steps which our representatives had taken as perfectly justifi able. Moreover, there was scarcely a man who had a practical knowledge of the subject, and who had been in China and knew the Chinese, who would say that S'r J. Bowring had acted wrongly. (Oh !) Ile believed that those who were connected with the China interest were all but unanimous in that view, and he did not think that such a general concurrence of opinion could have arisen if there was not something more important in the times and circumstances of the affair than the mere seta ing of a lorcha. Ths noble lord the member for London stated on the previous evening that tl e Government, in their despatches, had expressed no feeling of sorrow or regret for the bloodshed that had taken place. He did not think that any such expression was necessary. It was impossible for any one to view without regret the bombardment of such a town as Canton, but he did not see that it was requisite to give utterance to the senti ment. If the Government believed that the British ice presentative had acted properly, it was their duty to support him publicly, and not to condemn him either with unjust suspicion or faint praise. He did not say that every person would have acted precisely as Sir J. Bowring had done in the matter ; but the moment was one of great trial, requiring promptitude and decision of action, and he contended that down to the period of the seizing upon the lorcha there was nothing in the con duct of our representatives which the house could condemn. This brought him to the second part of the case—did we adopt unreasonable measures upon the seizing of the lorcha ? No doubt the seizing of a lorcha was a small beginning for a great war ; but every one was aware that, in dealing with Orientals, it was a most dan gerous thing to neglect small beginnings, and that if we submitted to trifling injuries and insults more important ones would follow before long. Above al! things, unless we showed a jealous sensitiveness of anything that was intended as an insult it would he impossible to keep our footing there. Upon this point he should read one sen tence from the work of M. Hue on the Chinese Empire, who, writing dispassionately upon the subject, said : " We have observed elsewhere that the Chinese, and es pecially the mandarins, are strong against the weak and weak against the strong. To domineer over and crush all around them is the object they constantly have in view, and to attain it they have an inexhaustible resource in their native cunning and pliability of character. Once allow them to get the upper hand, and it is all over with you ; but if you can only succeed in mastering them, you will find them ever after as docile and manageable as children. You may turn and twist them which way you will; but beware of showing yourself weak with them for a moment, for they must be ruled with an iron baud. The Chinese mandarins are pretty much like their own long bamboos. If one can but manage to get hold of them in the right way, they are easily bent double and kept so; but if for a second you let go, they are up again in a moment as straight as ever." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It was quite manifest, then, that it was impossible to measure the magnitude of the line by the apparent smallness of the commencement ; and this was not the first war in the East which had bad its origin in small beginnings. Ile remembered a war which did not turn out of very long duration, but which was very glorious, as wars were calla, which brought great honour to those who c inducted it, and a 1 g ttoo re ataht the accessio n of 0a orl.i t erritwhichoryhaathdo, been thisewe which ni oshusot country—ho .ende d ibtya ao a llu d e d rLoir, Bri tish merchant. A noble lord in another place, having commentedwhich bad givenu pon r t t h a o e t t roi thatfling n w a a t r u , r w e acaf thus ci answeredr cum the Etrl (if Derby in 1853 :—s.anheye "He had no hesitation in Entering into an ex rn . t'• i of the representationg which his noble frierult fi b r e s a t G p o r t y n e e c a r e n e . i v . General had seat home of the necessity of his jogs in sanctioning the course which he felt it necessary to adopt, and in corning to the conclusion that, reluctant'y as ho had been compelled to undertake hostile operations against Ava, the amount of insult, if not the extent of the individual injury done to British subjects, was such that, if it were felt neces.,ary to maintain the prestige of the Bri tish character in India, and to guard ourselves from future insult and injury, they must not be allowed to pass unnoticed and unredressed. His noble fries I had stated very truly that this was not the first offence which had been offered by the Burmese. It was not because a loss had been sustained by a British merchant to the extent of 9031. that we hail b3en compelled to demand of the Governor of Rangoon first, and of the King of Ava afterwar is, a thorough in demnification and reparation for the insult and injury which had been inflicted upon a British subject; but it was 132 c luso, from the y ear 1826, a success i on of insults and encroachments had gradually deprived us of all the bene fits which had resulted from the last war with Burma!), and driven our Minister from the post which be had bo..ii directed to hold, had gradually deprived us of all the pri vileges to which we were entitled, and had succeeded in e h ee w e y e t , in g the operations of our commerce—because each from cve insult bad been tamely acquiesced in, perhaps continuedt t Governmentheeei njuries i o n d e au insults day--it iwaseh had e rn as o e v , er. at length made it incumbent on the Governor-General not particularto pa ss the he d l id ir i e t e la t o u h t e e discussing itate te e the a t merits hat wh o f this the papers should be produced they would com y' pletely be e a n r out ha I had recourse to hostilities it the assertion that, unwillinglytas the Governor-General _i av wa n s impossible for him to haveshve avoided them, and t themi 'b vigorously i gete f r o e r d wa u r ps% them, necessary to carry So said Lord Derby on the Burmese war. (Cheers.) He (the Lord Advocate) did not s t an d there to justify al l wanwhich we had undertak en under such circumst n the but he contended for the nece=sity o f l ooking at a'l th es e facts with which each case was surrounded. Hon. gentle men appeared to be quite enamoured and enchanted with Chinee compo-itioo. No doubt in composition they txcelled, and, if they were only as trustworthy in nego tia'ion and as true in action as they were e l egant i n ship penman , our relations with them would be much more agreeable than they were ; but while they were all honey upon paper they were quite the opposite in action, for all the time Commissioner Yeh was writing plausible d'spatchos to Sir John Bowring, he was exciting his own pepulece against the British in order to provide a i pretence for refusing to admit our . ainbagsador. it was impossible to judge from their writings, then, how such persons should be dealt with. (Hear, hear.) It must be remembered that the Chinese Government was it the same time arrogant and weak, and that very weakness much increased the difficulty of dealing with it. Commissioner Yeh admitted the fact, and although no doubt ho had exaggerated the difficulty of dealing with the people under his control, still unquestionably some difficulty did exist. As an instance of the weakness of the Government Commissioner Keying in 1844 said : —" We cannot let you into Canton juet now because the people are much excited against you, but wait two years and then you will be entitled to admission." There was no doubt, therefore, that the imperial ceremissioners had some difficulty to c intend against in governing the Chi nese people, but in dealing with nations of that descrip tion, nations which were not always able to fulfil their obligations, it was necessary to tak© advantage of fa vourable opportunities for enforcing their fulfilment. Some persons might think that when the men who had been seized on board the Arrow were sent back the mat ter might have been allowed to end there. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") That was of course a matter of opi nion —("hear, hear," and laughter)—but it was to be considered whether or no the opportunity was a favour able one for enforcing the fulfilment of the treaty of 1849. The mere return of the twelve men was no satis faction for the insult which had been offered, and there could be no doubt that they ought to have been sent back as publicly as they were taken away. If that had been accepted as a reparation, the Chinese would have at once said, "See these Englishmen, they are willing to put up with insult," and in all probability they would have added insults more grave. But then came the question, was it a proper opportunity for enforcing our right of admission into Canton—not free admission, but that reasonable opportunity for communication with the Chinese Government from want of which great difficul ties had arisen, and which was permitted by all civilised nations ? They had admitted the ambassador from Siam and representatives of other Powers, but they refused the British plenipotentiary. The noble lord the member for London had stated that notice ought to have been given to them of our intention to enforce the provisions of the treaty ; but, it should be remembered, we were entitled to enforce the observance of the treaty at any time, it had been made the subject of a correspondence, and in en forcing the right of a personal audience with the Chinese Minister Sir J. Be wring was only doing what he was allowed by treaty to do, and therefore he had not done anything to deserve the censure whicld it was now pro posed to pass upon his conduct. He bad been driven to trespass longer than he had intended upon the patience of the house, but he besought the house to consider well what policy ought to be pursued. It must be remembered that the proceedings which were now being discussed had taken place two months ago; and was any one prepared to retrace the steps which had been taken ? He would venture to say that whatever might ba the opinion of any man, no one, when he saw how much depended upon what had been done, would be prepared to retrace those steps. With interests so grave at stake it would be bet ter, and even more just, even if a false move had been made, to proceed rather than to go back. If ever there were anything on the score of justice or morality which the house deemed worthy of censure, they must remem ber the question of policy, and to retrograde now would be to raise up a barrier between the Chinese and the English more dangerous and difficult to pass than any which had yet existed. The house must recollect how important it was that the representatives of Great Bri tain throughout the world should have a firm hand, and allow no insult to the flag of Great Britain. The hon. member for the West Riding had spoken about the hor rors attending the bombardment of a town containing 2,000,000 inhabitants ; but he could not find in the papers before the house anything lik e the sufferings described, nor was h e disposed to a cce pt Y e h' s account of the mat ter as being strictly true. On the contrary, he thought that 'what was done, if it were necessary that it should be done, had been done in the most moderate manner. (Laughter and ironical cries of " Hear, hear !") From the dense population of China a war with that coun try must always be a horrible war, and therefore, cer tainly, care ought to be taken how one was entered into. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.') But, on the other hand, by not acting with readiness and prompti tude when the occasion called for the exercise of those qualities, calamities and horrors infinitely more horrible might be incurred hereafter. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE contended that the ordinance was altogether illegal, and that the acquiescence of the Chi nese wool I not make it legal. And if the right of issuing ord n tnces were legal, stilt as the licence in this case had expired, the British navy were not called upon to inter fere for its protection. He could but express his horror at the conduct of Sir John Bowring, who, knowing that the lorcha was net entitled to hoist the British flag, studiously concealed that fact from the Chinese. The Lord Advocate appealed to the fact that the foreign re sidents at Canton appraved of the conduct of Sir John Bowring. But did those foreigners know, what Sir John Bowring knew, that the lorcha had no right to theßritish flag ? Were they aware that the licence had expired ? The Lord Advocate had also asked them to stand by their agents. But would they stand by injustice? Would they stand by spoliation and blood I Was it to be said that the Parliament, which put down music in the parks on Sunday, would tolerate such a glaring violation of the fir6t principles of Christian morality ? If they did, he could only remind them that chief among the vices the Christian Book reprobated, was the sin of hypo crisy. Mr. HORSFALL was content to rest his opinion and the law of the case on the opinion of Lord Wens leydale. He defended the Liverpool Association from the attack made on it by Mr. Cobden, and pointed out to the house that that association did not urge on Lord Clarendon a new war, but only asked, if a new treaty were necessary, it would be desirable t insist on free ac cess to all the rivers and ports of China. He ridiculed the modesty of the member for the West Riding, and re minded the house that Russia, which he was to crumple up like a piece of paper, had been found a pi ece o f ver y stiff paper. He concluded by refusing to vote for the motion, because it was in effect a vote of censure against the Governor, the Admiral, the Foreign Secretary, and the Government, and because, if it were carried, it would encourage the Chinese Government, and he (51r, Horsfall) would not be answerable for British property or British life. Lord R. CECIL defended Mr. Cobden from Mr. Horsfall's attack ; and, with reference to the offer of reward for the heads of the English, he reminded the house that we had been repeatedly tnld we were not at war with China. If we were not, then our forces were acting as pirates on the Chinese coast. He would ask, if a set of pirates or buccaneers wer3 vexing our coasts would not we offer a reward for their heads ? Ho could not understand the argument that had been so much used in this debate, that we must stand by our agents. That doctrine had already involved us in many troubles, and was likely to involve us in more. The character of England was tarnished by these proceedings on the Continent, while in the East our conduct had inspired the nations there with a horror of our approach. It was time that this state of things should be ended. Sir C. NAPIER had so high an opinion of the mode ration, humanity, and discretion of Sir Michael Sey mour that he would not for a moment believe that that gallant officer would have fired one unnecessary shot against the Chinese. He was certain that air Michael Seymour was conscientiously convinced that the Arrow was to all intents and purposes a British vessel, It was said that her licence was out, but he could not under stand how that licence could have cxpired until ber re turn to the port from which she had sailed. It was said the Chinese did not know that the Arrow was a Britigh vessel. He did not care whether they knew it or not ; the British flag was flying and they hauled it down. What was demanded ? They were only asked to send back the men in the same public manner in whic'a they had taken them away, not to send them back in a iinsakiog Frivate way—and to make on apology, Good God ? Was there anything extraordinary in that ? If a man had his hat struck off, or was knocked down, he was entitled to an apology. We had only asked for an apology, and that was refused by the Chinese Govern ment. Whin France WAS at war with Mexico the French Admiral in a hasty and improper manner went on board an English man of war and took the pilot out by force. He remembered perfectly well that the officer on the sta . Lion and the admiral were very ill thought of for ;()t re senting this in a most positive manner. Had he (Sir C. Napier) been there he should have insisted upon Prince Joinviile going on board the very manof war from which he had taken the pilot, and making a public apology, and if he had not done so he must have taken the conse quences. He (Sir C Napier) would mast certainly have sent him to England. In the pres,nt case. supposing that S.r Michael Seymour, knowing that the English flag had been hauled down and insulted, had taken no notice of the matter, would not the papers have been lull of the insult, and would not Admiral Seymour have been se verely condemned for not avenging it? Hon, gentlemen had du no l d h e r e i t s aid an that h h t e t o bad b e not on both don eh sidesi s duty, 'd th t e h h a o t u h s e e recalled ; and he (Sir C. Napier) verily believed that he would have been recalled. They blamed Sir J. Bowring, hut they did not blame Sir M. Seymour ; but if Sir J. Bowrieg was to bia,ine, Sir M. Seymour was also to blame. (" No.") The commander-in-chief was bound to use his own discretion, and if he thought Sir J. BJw ring was doing wrong it was his duty to refuse to obey any orders from him. It might have been better to have seize , ' a war junk, and keptit until reparation wag made, but there was no war junk there, and if Sir M. Seymour had pocketed the affront the Chinese authorities and the authorities of other nations woul I have said, " Whit a mean-spirited man this British officer is. He has seen the British flag hauled down before his face, and he has not the courage and resolution to resent it." They must regret that the lives of innocent people should have been sacrificed, though there did not appear to have been much loss of life in this unfortunate affair ; but if there had been loss of life it was tLe fa.ilt of the Chinese Com missioner. He must again repeat that he knew Sir M. Seymour to be so just, so humane, and so discreet an offi cer that he was quite certain he never would have gone to the extent he had if he coo d re. lady h -ve vindicated the honour of his country in any other way, (Cheers.) Lord GODERICH supported the resolution expressly on the ground that it was a vote of censure against Sir J. Bowring, upo.i whom he believed the whole guilt of these proceedings ought to be cast. He had a high re• spect Lr the honour of his country's flag, and ther. fore he could not bear to see it tarnished. Mr. BENTINCR was ready to agree to the resolution as an abstract proposition. but he had reason to believe that the consequence of the house affirming it would be to complicate matters in China still more than they were at present, and could endanger Britifa life and property iu China. On the ground, therefore, he must decline to support the resolution. But he had another motive. He was most anxious to see a purely Conservative' Go vernment in power, but ho would never while he held a seat in the house vote for a resolution which by remov ing the present Government would make way for the Conservatives, in conjenction with those right hon. gen tlemen who had been c incerned in the anti-Protestant and democratic movements (the Peelites and Manchester men) of the last few years. Admiral BERKELEY (te whom Sir J. Graham gave way by order of the Speaker, after some noisy calls from both sides of the house), deprecated the coloured account put forward to the house by the hon. baronet oppo site (Sir Thomas Herbert) of the conduct of an absent servant of the Crown, and whose proceedings he (Admiral Berkeley) felt called upon to vindicate. Sir M. Seymour had never fired a shot until his captain had been ashore to endeavour to make peace. If the opinion were to gain ground that admirals were never to fight until they got instructions from home, they had far bet ter be kept at home until they are wanted. If coo r there was a man fitted to command it was Sir M. S,y. moor. He was not only a great commander but a good Christian. The gallant admiral had been charged with refusing to fight on a Sunday, and he (Admiral Berke ley) certainly felt that that was not a day for fighting, but that was nut his only reason. IL delayed purposely in order to give the Chinese another day to consider. Lord St. Vincent used to say, First try your ambassador, and when your ambassador fails, call in your admiral. That was the course adopted on that occasion, and he be lieved that the gallant admiral was fully justified by the circumstances in all he did. Sir J. GRAHAM said that he should have given a silent vote but for a duty that he felt he owed to an ab sent friend. The gallant admiral (Sir M. Seymour), whom he had the honour to know and number amongst his friends, was one of the most humane and discreet officers in her Majesty's service, and a better selection for the command of the war in China could not have been made. He would also add that no man could be more certainly influenced by motives of humanity than Admi ral Seymour. The right hon. gentleman who last spoke said that when the ambassador failed the admiral was to be appealed to, but there were great difficulties upon that point. There was the difficulty of the question of law, of the question of policy, and as a question of hu manity and religion. But then there was further the question, how far an admiral was to be considered sub servient to a civil officer, whose judgment was perhaps by no means superior to his own. His (Sir J. Graham's) own belief was, that there should be no doubt whatever about the quarter where the power was really vested. He also thought that the admiral ought to be considered ministerial in cases of that sort, and that the civil offi cer should be considered as the representative of the Crown. The responsibility of the civil servant who gave the order for war was very great, but how much greater was that of the Government who delegated the authority for that purpose to a civil officer unaccustomed to war fare, and very probably ha v i ng b u t little knowledge of it. Withl regard to Sir J. Bowring, he, with many other members of that assembly, had had the opportunity of knowing him, and watching his character and conduct. ' He would, therefore, make no hesitation in stating his candid opinion of Sir J. Bowring. He believed he was a man who would suddenly form very strong opinions upon very slight impulses, and that he was more remarkable for self-confidence than for the soundness of his judgment. There was grave responsibility in appointing him our re , presentative in China, but having appointed him, the Go . vernment must of course uphold him, and identify them selves with all he bad done and with his reasons for do , ing it. But, nevertheless, it was not right to press too hardly upon the representative of the Government in China ; for if Sir J. Bowring had erred, it was by no means clear that he did not believe he was giving effect to the wishes of the Government. Upon the question of law he should not venture to say much. He had waited anxiously to hear the opinion of some law officer of the Crown, not only upon the question of international law, but the law bearing on this particular case. It would be presumptuous in him to express any opinion upon that subject, where so much doubt existed even amongst the greatest authorities. It was clear that the question of the Arrow was of mere pretext, for, assuming that the Chinese had erred, surely the smallest reparation for such an error might easily have been accepted. Surely on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth fora tooth, a junk , was a good reparation for a lorcha. Not so Sir J. Bow ring. He was bent on obtaining a triumph that all his predecessors had failed to obtain, upon the question of access to the city of Canton. He was bent on being re ceived into that city amid admiring hundreds of thousands, surrounded by all the pomp and circumstance of a public triumph, a hundred tom-toms accompanying him. (A. laugh.)' So some of the concessions offered to him were accepted. This disputed point of the right of entree was to be a matter of triumph with a view, as he considered, of promoting English interests. This question had occu pied the attention of four or five Secretaries of State in succession, and each had come to the conclusion that this treaty should not be enforced without authority from England. The Government of Lord John Russell had positively prohibited any attempt to enforce that condi tion. The Government of Lord Derby had been as posi tive. He therefore was of opinion that Sir John Bowring, feeling himself bound to carry this point, had reason to think that the moment had arrived when, consistently with principles laid down in England, he might venture upon this business. The last despatch in 1849, written by the noble lord, was not so pesceful in its spirit as any of the preceding letters on the subject. He found in th et despatch these words ;--" The British Government well I knows that if occasion requires a British mil tary force would be able to destroy the town of Canton, and not leave one single house standing, and cou:d thus inflict the most signal chastisement on the people of that city." He expressed his amazement that after the avowed order of the Government in the Russian ,war that defenceless cities should be spared, such a course as bombarding Can ton should have been spoken of in terms of approbation. This was a course which he said ought to be arrested. He had heard with pleasure that there had been a protest against it in Canton by Russell and Co. There hat; also been a protest against it in this house by Russell and Co.—(a laugh)—which would be remembered in its an nals when the miseralle squabble of the lorcha had been forgotten. He thought the resolution of the hon. gentle man the member fur the West Riding temperate, mea sured, and moderate in its terms, and therefore wor thy of support. He could not for a moment hesitate between that resolution, and being a party to the ap probation given to the proceedings at Canton. The division to which they were about to come would be regarded with 'immense interest by the people of this country. He thought that " Russell and Co." would be held to be subject to very limited responsibility. He thought the responsibility of that vote was near at hand, and that every member in that house would be called upon to account for that vote. (Hear.) But whatever might be the question with regard to any human tribu nal, he believed that the conduct of the Government whether regarded as a question of law, as a question of policy, as a matter of humanity, or more solemnly in re ference to their Christian principles—he believed it to be utterly indefensible, and he never gave a vote with a more clear conscientious conviction of its propriety than in voting for the motion of the hon. member for the West Riding. (Loud cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the question before the house had been debated upon the principle of humanity, of justice, and of policy, and in his opinion the first and most important consideration in dealing with it was, whether what had taken place in reference to the war in which we were engaged with China was or was not consistent eith justice ? In entering upon that differed from those opinions whi c h had been question he must beg very respectf u ll y with so much eloquence by no bl e and lerrne d l or d s i n o be s e t n ate de t i t i i v a e t r h e e i another place upon a previous evening. Of those opi nions he would present to the house a short analysis, for great as was his respect for the assembly which he had the honour to address, yet he could not compare its de liberations, in c 'nnection with the subject under discus sion, or the arguments which bad been advanced by its members, with those which had elsewherebeen delivered. If he could only satisfactorily answer the arguments which had been urged elsewhere he thought be should not have failed in disposing of those which bad been ad= vanced in the House of Commons. (Hear.) The argu ments to which be alluded were, in the first place, that the colonial ordinance upon which the validity of the register of the Arrow was said to depend was at variance with the Imperial statute, and in consequence of no value whatsoever ; secondly, that . even on the supposition that the colonial register was valid, that of the Arrow had expired, and had been no longer of legal effect ; and thirdly, that even if it weregranted that the colonial ordinance was of force, it c mid not exempt the Arrow, being Chine-te property, from the authority and jurisdiction of the Emperor of China. Now, he was desirous to lay before the house that which be con ceived to be in reality the law in reference to thosethree propositions ; and he might, before proceeding to do so, ho permitted to remark that in his opinion the whole question had been put upon an erroneous basis, when the title of the Arrow to the character of a British vessel was based on the validity er non-validity of the col tnial ordinance —a circumstance which in point of fact was wholly immaterial to the d ci,ion at whible they ought t• arrive. TIM title of the A rro w to the designation of a British vessel rested upon the supplementary treaty which had been entered into between this country and China in the year 1842, and he must say that bethought a noble and learned lord, who had spoken in another place, had based his argument upon a totally wrong foot ing in stating that the vessel in question, if she had been in th which o t ri e t i e Th s ah o da f a i ec h se : ue n i r c r . oei g ud h n t ta rty un aa d nn e trdocnti that c a b u t e m ea s nn t a y v n icuseiffst :sndudebehyr asthea g t a h i an o u s s et our municipal law who might happen to have been on board, might be seized and taken away. The noble and 142 , the Arrow, a any learned lord might h ave known that but for the treaty of 8h er i a ship b le to o n b t h e ev visited o b f y C t a i n i e ton would, in acc or d iu ce w.th the principles of general international law, o have r y other liable Chinese authorities, hut that the supplementary treaty, which must in the present else enter into the argu ment, described exactly the class of vessels to which the Arrow belorged—a class of vessels which by sti pulations made between England and China were, fur the purpose o! local and coattng commerce to receive a special protection and, as it were, to be naturalised. The words of the 17th article of the treaty were, " That every British schooner or lorcha shall have sail ing orders prepared and registered in Chinese and Rig lish under the seal and sienature of the Chief Superin tendent of Trade," ate. Now every lorcha whiob received such a register was by the very tenor of the treaty con verted into a British lorcha. (Cries of "No, no.") Yes; such a vessel would be entitled to the privileges set forth in the treaty. The colonial ordinance was nettling but a municipal regulation, which f or municipal purposes had been superadded to the general international law. A contract for such purposes had been entered into be tween England and China, as set forth in the very terms of the treaty ; and if the Arrow had complied with the terms of that contract she must be said to have been within the meaning of the treaty. Now whatever was a. British vessel within that meaning could not, properly speaking, be boarded by the Chinese authorities without a violation of contract, and was fully entitled to the pro tection of the British consul. But it had been urged that the calling licence of the Arrow had not been in cenferteity with the eelluial ordinance. Ho, however, must say, with great submission to the noble and learned lord by whom that statement had been made—and he said so with the more confidence because he was fortified in his opinion by the authority of one who was better versed in the principles of international law than, per haps,4ny other man in England—he must say that the colonial ordinance, being a matter of international law, could not be revoked by the Chinese, and that the only thing to be appealed to was the language of the .treaty. Before he discussed the language of the treaty, how ever, it was desirable that the house should understand what was meant in the Imperial statutes by the term " British ship." (Hear.) That term, in the sense in which it appeared in the statutes in question, had be , le introduced into our law in the old Navigation and Registration Acts, and meant, not ships belonging to British subjects, but such vessels as were entitled to the privileges and advantages which had been by the Navigation Acts, and was now by the Merchant Shipping Acts, secured to certain ships coming within peculiar conditions. There were ships manned by foreigners which did net fulfil any of the conditions of the statute, but which were still British merchant ships, inasmuch as they were the property of British subjects. Now the words "British ships" were plainly used in the supplementary treaty, not in the sense given to them in the Imperial statute, but in the general sense of vessels belonging to British subjects. He used the terra "British subjects," not in the sense of British natural-born subjects, but as representing persons resi dent within the British dominions, and it was in that sense only that the words "British merchant ships" . were to be interpreted in the treaty of 1842. Now it was abundantly plain from the 17th article of that treaty, that if the Arrow answered certain conditions she was for all the purposes of the treaty entitled to the protec tion which by the treaty was guaranteed to a British ship. These conditions she did answer, and he might remark that it was a great mistake to suppose that colo nial registration was forbidden by the Imperial legisla ture. An imperial register, which entitled a ship to certain general privileges bad reference to its sailing throughout the world, but the colonial register, as it was called, was-a thing limited to the coasts of China, imposing restrictions en vessels engaged in the coasting trade as well as conferring privileges in order to prevent smuggling. Those colonial registers were wholly inde pendent of the Imperial register, and only gave the ves sels limited privileges. It was not competent to the Chinese authorities to deny any vessel which had received a re gister from Hong-Kong the character of a British ves sel. Consequently, all the arguments they had heard about the expiry of the license was a matter about which the Chinese had no concern at all and were not entitled to avail themselves of. He would, in the next place, consider the point dwelt upon with so much gravity by the venerahle and noble 1 )rd in the other house (Lord Lyndhurst). It was extraordinary, but perfectly true, that he could frank all the propositions for which that nobleman contended but leave the real point of this case untouched, and found upon the same proposition another argument totally consistent with it to show that the Chinese were in the wrong. It was true they could not convert a subject of one country into the subject of another as against his own sovereign. He had hiinself frequently had to enforce that principle. The Alien Act, for instance, enabled them to grant general letters of naturalisation to men of every nation, but it did not destroy the tights of the sovereign of the parti cular country to the allegiance of its subjects. But that was not the p o i n t. N o b o d y sa id th a t th e Chinese owner of the vessel was not answerable to his own sovereign. The present inquiry was limited to whether a natural born subject of China becoming a resident at Hong Kong, and so becoming in that sense a British colonia' subject, they might not make him owner of a ship and give him a register, by means of which, although he himself would not be released from his allegiance to the Empero r o f Chi na, t h e s hi p i tse lf would have the immunity conferred by the treaty. (Hear.) It was a singular thing this case, on which so much reasoning had been exhausted, had actually been decided in this country in our law courts, and the proposition was known to almost every writer on international law. Mr. Wheaton's book had been cited with reference to a caEe in which a proposition had been made to the authorities of this country which exactly bore out the principle that he contended for. The proposition was laid down there, and deduced, not only from writers on international law, but decided that the subject of another country cannot put off his national character and so put an end to his natural a'- legience as not to be answerable for acts done against his own sovereign ; but that he might, by adoption or natu ralisation, enjoy all the privileges of another country ; and a question had arisen in our courts. By laws for. tnerly passed British subjects were prohibited from engag• ing in certain trades ; but when they went to America they were allowed to engage in them, and the case of " Marshall and Dutton" had been decided on that prin ciple, the ruling being that the parties who contended for the right were entitled to all the privileges conferred upon the United States traders. The question came before the Court of Error, and it was remarkable the noble and learned lord was not aware of the answer given to the reasoning of counsel on that which was a similar point to it, whether a native of China could not, by residing in Hong-Kong, become a British subject sufficiently to con fer upon a ship that he was owner of the privilege under the treaty. Lord Stowell and other learned judges had decided that a person residing in Stockholm, natu:alised, and owner of a ship, was not entitled to claim for that vessel the privil-ge granted to the vessel of a Swedish subject (hear, from the opposition) ; but that decision was deliberately overruled by the whole of the judges in the Exchequer Chamber, who held that a foreigner going to another country, and becoming domiciled there, might become the the owner of a ship of that country, so as to enable him to avail himself in his own native country of all the privileges afforded to that ship. (Cheers.) It was said that this particular Chinese was sought to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of his sove reign. It was perfectly true that in a criminal sense he could not be so withdrawn, but by national law and municipal law a native of one country could reside in another, and possess privileges other than those posses sed by his own countrymen, though he never could dis solve his natural allegiance to his sovereign. If the'ease were at gued before the noble and learned lord, he would admit, undoubtedly, that the proposition he (the Attor ney General) contended fer was correct. They forgot that they had by the Merchant Shipping Act assumed the right to do this, and said that a British ship might be owned by a naturalised subject ; and if the arguments of tile other side were wrong, that act would have been incapable of being maintained according to the law of nations. The whole thing, therefore, turned upon the law. The argument elsewhere, conducted as it was with learning, talent, elevation, and dignity, was ad dressed to him in vain, for, first, it was contended that the whole matter depended upon the colonial ordinance, was not forbidden by the Imperial acts of Parliament, and that they could not consider that a ship belonging to a native of China was a British vessel. Those were the arguments used in the other house, but he was sure that a calm perusal of the acts of Parliament would not support the propositions contended for there. (Cheers.) Was it not surpi i sing, nay, humiliating even to hon, and right hon. gentlemen who were always so eager to protect their absent friends—(s laugh)--that they should denounce Sir John Bowring on a point on which Lord Lyndhurst was opposed to Lord Wensley dale, and Lord St. Leouards and the Lord Chancellor were directly contrary in their opinions ? Was it, sur prising that he should be protected by his friends here for being ignorant on this subject, because, believing that, he considered himself bound to protect the 1 e-eh a in question and to enforce the treaty. It was said that the Government here should not have endorsed the error of Sir J. Be wring. Sir J. Bowring having sent all the despatches home, what was the duty of Lord Claren don ? The constitution of the country had provided the Foreign Office with a proper legal adviser, selected for his abilities and made a permanent officer. Lord Cla rendon laid all the papers before the Queen's Advocate, a gentlemen of great ability, who was selected by Lord Derby's Government, in order to obtain his advice ; the opinion of the Queen's Advocate was conveyed in 'the despatch of the 10th of December, and poor Sir. Bowring, who had been held up to reproach by those who had assumed the right to criticise his conduct, and had been cruelty attacked by his former familiar acquaintances, expressed in his letter the very opinion expressed by the legal adviser t 3 the Foreign Office, who said correctly :—" The expiration of the Arrow's sailing license on September 27, previous to her seizure does not appear to have been known to the Chinese authorities, and this again, as a matter of British regula tion, could not justify the Chinese." He (the Attorney. General) had not the honour of any acquaintance with Sir J. Bowring, but had seen many of his despatoties, and thought him disposed greatly to "Celestialities"—( a , laugh)—to maintain the just rights of China. It was said that Sir J. Bowring wanted to gratify his ambition at the expense of the Chinese, and Set lie had maintained their rights in the case of Shangloae, and he wrote dis patches in their behalf. What was the proper meaning of Sir J. Bowring's letter, that the Chinese did not know of the expiration of the licence ? It was this—that the ) question was as to the existence of a malus animus in the Chinese. If the Chinese had no mans rcei they would have said that they had entered the vessel, believing it to be Chinese. This was what was meant by Sir J. Bowring ' —i.e., that it was a mere afterthought on the part of the Chinese that the vessel was not a British ship. The "familiar acquaintance" of Sir J. Bowring might have hit upon this easy and obvious explanation. That which had followed bad been a just retribution upon wanton insolence and outrage on the part of the Chinese. Sir J. Bowring thought that this was the spirit of the Chinese, and he (the Attorney-General) believed that he had been right. He had caught the Chinese fiagrante delicto. He had invited the Chinese to surrender their prisoners, but was refused and resisted. This man Yeh had been made remarkable for cruelty, and tried to put himself at the head of a frantic populace and encourage brut .1 ou rage. Humanity itself required prompt and decisive measures, rethentban to submit to a course of insults which would have resultedin a war like the last. It was idle to-talk of humanity in war. (Oh !) He meant that though the harshness of war might be mitigated, it must ever remain cruel in its nature. The extent of the operatic)! had been controlled by the gallant Admiral Seymour whose characti r had been upheld even by the iight boo, taronet (Sir J. G ra h am ) , This, then, was the case ; and what remained to be said ? He had tried to argue the legal question . calmly, and to lay t e'ore the Louse all the materials for a just judgment. It was a inistako to suppose (he bad on witted to say) that there could be no British ship not registered'. The law on that subject was otherwise stated by "Abbott on shipping,"page A ship might be legally owned by a British subject though not registered, nor a British ship within the navi gation laws. He wished further to remark on the re spect due to the British flag altogether apart from the question of legality or of registry. There was a differ ence between a ship having originally obtained papers (bona ide) which had expired, and a ship which bad originally obtained the papers by fraud. On that point he referred to the authority of Lord Stowell in a case in " Robinson's Admiralty Reports." So it had been decided that a ship sailing under the colours of a nation is clothed with its character. Such was the case of the Arrow. It carried the British colours, and the Chinese should have treated her as a British vessel, and carried any complaint to the consul. The 14th article of the supple mental treaty showed how this was understood. It was a wise stipulation that any interferencewith the flag of either country should he by means of the authorities of such country. Those, then, who had denied the national pro tection due to the Arrow were mistaken ; and he asked if any member could conscientiously declare that Sir J. Bowring had been guilty of acting on a conscious error. (Ministerial cheers.) No man could honestly say that, and no man who could not say so could vote for this mo tion. (Ministerial cheers.) Dr. PHILLINIORE rose to move the adjournment of the debate. Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, considering that the subject has undergone so much discussion I could be willing to come to a decision to-night. (Hear, hear.) Unless the Government very much desire to continue the debate, therefore, I should desire to divide. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and cries for a division ) Mr. R. PHILLIMO RE said, that if it was the wish of the house, he would withdraw his motion. Lord PALMERSTON said—As far as we are con cerned we are quite ready to do whatever the house may think fit ; but as there are many other non, members— (bear, hear)-who are anxious to express their sentiments upon a subject of such considerable importance, it is not, I think, unreasonable that we should agree to the mo• tion for an adjournment of the discussion. Cries of " adjourn " from the Ministerial side of the house, and " divide " from the Opposition.) The question was then put, and the debate was ad journed until Monday. The remaining orders of the day were postponed, and the house adjourned at 25 minutes past 12 o'clock. . PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF LORDS.—FEB. 26. WAR WITH CHINA. The following Peers voted against the Earl of Derby's resolutions:— PRESENT. 1T.R.11. Duke of Fingall. Cambridge. Granville. Lord Chancellor. liarrowby. Archbishop of Can- Kingston. terbury. Munster. DUKES. Scarborough. Argyll. Spencer. Norfolk. Shelburn e Wellington. St. Germains. MARQUISES. - Shaftesbury, Ailesbury. Yarborough. Abercorn. Viscouzas. Breadalbano. Enfield. Camden. Falkland. Clanricarde. Sydney. Towushend. Torrington. Broughton. Camoys. Carew. Carington. Cremorne. De Tabley. Dacre. Dufferin. Foley. Glenelg. Hatherton. Leigh. Lilford. Methuen. Mostyn. Overstone. EARLS. Abingdon. Airlie. Albemarle, Bessborough. Burlington. Camperdown, Chichester. Clarendon. Cork. Ducic, BISHOPS. Panmure. Bath and Wells. Rivers. Carlisle. Saye and Sele. Gloucester. Stafford. London. Stanley of Alderley. Manchester. Truro. BARONS. Talbot de Malahide. Aveland. Vivian. Arundel. Wrottesley. Belper. Wensleydale. Direr]. PROXIES. DUKES. Devonshire. Leeds. Leiuster. Marlborough. Roxburgh. Kintore, Crewe. Lindsey. Churchill. Leicester. Dunfermline. Meath. Dorchester. Morley. Denman. Ripon. Erskine. Rosebery. Gardner. Stair. Howard de Walden, Waldegravo. Harris. Zetlaud. Ho wden. VISCOUNT. Keane. Masserene. Kinnaird. Blsnors. Lovat. Down. Lyons. Durham. Londesborough. Hereford. Monson. Lichfield. Manners. Peterborough. Portman. St. Asaph. Petro. Winchester. Rossmore. Worcester. Sudeley. BARONS. Seaton. Alvanley. Stuart de Deeies. Ashburton. Vernon. Belhaven. Ward. Brougham. Wharnelifre. Cowley. Wodehouso. MARQUISES. Headfort. Londonderry. Northampton. Sligo. Westminster. EARLS. Amherst. C rlisle. Cottenham. Denbigh. Devon. Errol. Effingham. Essex. Fitzhardinge. Forteseue. Glasgow. Gosford. Granard. Konmare. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. This committee mot again on Thursday ; Mr. Labon chore in the chair. Sir George Simpson was the first and only witness called, his examination lasting through the whole sitting. He said he held the post of governor of the territory for the Hudson's Bay Company fer the period of 37 years. There was no fixed seat of government, but there was a seat of council. His authority extended over the whole of the company's territory. The nature of the authority of the council was merely as advisers, and to vote upon such questions as were brought before them. The council could outvote the governor, but it had never been so. He had tra velled through the greater part of the country forming the territory of the company. His impressions of the capa bilities of the soil or climate as regarded Rupert's Land were that it was not adapted for settlement or cultivation. He applied the same remark to the country of the Red River ; they were occasionally obliged to import wheat from Canada. He also applied the same remark to the land west of Vie Rocky Mountains. By Mr. Gladstone—He spoke of Rupert's Land as dating in regard to boundaries as laid down in the charter. Speaking of the whole of Rupert's Land, he would draw a distinction as to climate ; the north being much more vigorous than the south. There was no part of the terri tory having a mild climate. Barley very seldom ripened, and was very small in yield. He did not think settle ment had an influence upon climate, even when the coun try was densely populated. Vancouver's Island he con sidered more favourably situated for settlement than the company's territory. By. Mr. Gordon—He considered that a description given of the country in a book which he had published was too favourable ; he had overrated the capabilities of the country. By Mr. Grogan—The occasions on which they had to import wheat from Canada were exceptional ; that neces sity arose from the country being entirely flooded and the crops destroyed ; but in ordinary years the quantity of grain grown in the company's territory was n o t su ffi c i ent for the consumption of the natives. There were but 8,003 acres of land under cultivation in the neighbourhood of the Red River settlement. By Mr. Adderley—The present population of the Red River territory was about 8,000. The settlement had been established over 40 years. There was much difference of climate between Miuosota and the Red River settlement. By Mr. Ellice—At the Red River settlement the company kept two years' supply of grain on hand for fear of the crops being destroyed by floods. There were hundreds and hundreds of miles of water across the country when the floods came. The company did establish a model farm at Red River settlement, and they did all they could to pro mote agriculture ; they had also imported the very best breeds of cattle to be had. He did not think the Ameri cans were rapidly makiag' settlements towards the Red River as had been stated by a previous witness. By the Chairman —The company employed 60 chief fee -tors, 9 chief raters, 5 surgeons, 87 clerks, 67 post mas t e rs, 1,200 pe rmanent servants. In the trading season the com pany gave employment to about 3,000 persons altogether ; that included labouring Indians. He calculated the total number of Indians in Rupert's Land to be 43,84'. That calculation was made this last season. The country to the east of the Rocky Mountains contained, he considered, 12,700 inhabitants, and that to the west about 8,600. The whole amount of Indian population aithinthe territory of the Hudson' Bay Company, including Vancouver's Island, he considered to be about 139,000. He thought the popu lation (Indian) generally had decreased of late years, owing to wars among themselves and the small-pox. The mode of artmieistering justice was as nearly as possible similar to that of England. In reply to questions by different members, the witness proceeded to state that the Indian settlement of the Red River was approve! of and encouraged by the company. In the company's territory, there were 19 missionary sta tions of the Established Church, 12 of Roman Catholics, 4( f Wesleyans, and lof Presbyterians. There was also a Roman Catholic mission on the St. Lawrence, another at Albany, and another at Fort William. The company paid the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rupert's Land a salary of 3001. a-year ; they also gave him 100/_ a-year in aid of schools, besides stipends to chaplains at different stations. With regard to the executive power of the company's ter ritory it comprised one governor and a c ounc il of 16 chief factors. In the Red River settlement the recorder was governor of the district; he had executive power as well as judicial. The rest of the territory was governed by the witness himself. The tenure of land was by lease for 999 years. The directors in London had no legislative power as regarded their territory, but they had the supervision of acts. If a person wished to go out and settle in the terri tory he could get land at ss. an acre, payable to the com pany, and would have to pay no other charge. The com pany's servants going out from England were engaged for only five years; but six out of eight of them remain for 20 or 30 years, and many of them beceme settlers and remain for life. The pay of a labourer going out from England used to be 171., but it was now 201. a-year; from being common labourers many of them become boatmen and fishermen, and get from 30/. to 401. a-year. The 16 chief factors were partners in the trade of the company. The laws under which the settlement rf the Red River was go verned were printed ; the new laws were posted upon the church d oors ; they had no newspaper in the country. He believed the settlers would be perfectly well satisfied with the xistin g s t a t e of things in the settlement but for agi tetors, who had an eye to the trade ; but agitators come from with ou t , not from wi hin the se ttlement. The ave rage time b e t ween goo d s b oug ht b y th e c ompany in was n L aens don and delivered in some parts of the settleinen l onndg four as seven years—thatyea rs;wouldp period betweenelapsing when the directors in London t i h s, e he minimumea meant t the received the be tween the goods being sent from . E a ir t ga t a e h l i o id m a o n n d ey t f h o e r time such in London appoint goods. The governor and company h e was their servant. the governor of the territory, America. During the greater part of that time N He (witness), though gov i erop o r a r :f h or 37 years, resided the period of his tenure that, according t settlement, and , o is of mueder in the representation of the crime of the knowl elge, was a fair rei of otfi n ee there had been only 19 cases settlement. Geo. Simpson n had not finished , t tT wil committee rose Sir at four O'c.ock, a n d a dj ourned T e h n e t e h a o a c n o ti m na m i until Monday. CRYSTAL PALACE.—ONE SHILLING DAY.—Priday, Feb. 27.—Admissions on payment, 649 ; ditto, by s ta . son tickets, 2691 total, 91$, INCENDIARY EIRE REAR PONTEFRACT. --Seven grain and straw btacks o standing in a field on the Darrington road, Pontefract, the property of Messrs. Motion, were on Sunday morning last destroyed by fire. The stacks were all burning simultaneously, Naval and Military intelligence. The court of inquiry ordered by the General Command ing-in -Chief on the charges preferred by Colonel Shirley against General Beatson, at the urgent demand of the gal lant general, ha s commenced proceedings at the late offices of the Army Works Corps, in Whitehall-yard. The board of officers is presided over by Lieut.-General Sir Colin Campbell, G.C.B. A few days since the 34th Regiment, stationed in Edi - burgh Castle, were drawnuPlleioie ' the — ionse of their colonel, General Sir T. M. Brisbane, in Charlotte-square, there to give expression to their gratitude for his unwearied efforts to promote the moral and material welfare of the regiment. The General came out to receive the regiment, an l, after alluding to its servicesin the Crimea and various parts of the globe, said he had commanded it for 30 years, and no complaints had ever been brought to him against any individual in it. The sentence of the general court-martial held at Wool wich for the trial of Pay-Sergeant W. Girven on the 18th and inst. has been promulgated. The prisoner having been found guilty of both the charges of which he was ac• cused, as previously stated in The Sun, was publicly re duced on parade to the station of a private, and ordered to be placed under stoppages until the amount of public money which he embezzled be made good. The Iris, 26, sailing frigate, Capt. Loring, arrived at Spithead on Thursday to await orders. She proceeds to the relief of the Juno on the Australian station. The Nimrod, 6, new screw despatch gun-vessel, having received Commander Roderick Dew and the other officers and men from the Flying Fish, and having been swung for the adjustment of her compasses, went to Spithead yester day. The Bulldog, 6, paddlewheel sloop,Cowmander Gordon, went into Portsmouth harbour yesterday afternoon to be paid off. The Prussian frigate Thetis, 40, Captain Sundewsl, was (locked yesterday at Portsmouth, to obtain a thorough refit. Extensive preparations are in progress in order to expe• dite the construction of the 26 heavy gun steam corvette Galatea in Woolwich dockyard. A number of the frames are got together, and are ready to be laid down. The shed from which the Scout was launched a few weeks ago is being considerably extended beyond its former space, as the prescribed length of the Galatea, 330 feet, will exceed that of any ship hitherto built at Woolwich. A vessel of similar dimensions, to be named the Ariadne, was recently commenced in Deptford dockyard, and is intended to carry 32 lighter ordnance, and to be fitted with a screw and engines of 800-horse power. The freight-ship Northfleet has salted from Woolwich, laden with 1,200 tons of ordnance and war stores for Hong Kong. The screw steam-frigate Shannon, 51, Captain William Peel, sailed from Plymouth on Wednesday for Lisbon. In consequence of the special application of Captain Peel to the Lords of the Admiralty, this frigate has had two of her boats fitted at Dovonport with Mr. Clifford's new ap paratus, and previous to her departur, they Were both tested. The larboard quarter cutter, with 15 bands, and the second cutter, with 20 hands, were lowered in a few seconds when the ship was tinder full steam. The craw of the paddlewheel steam vessel Vixen, 2, Com mander Mecham, were paid wages at Devonport on Wed nesday, preparatory to her sailing for South Australia. The newly erected boring mills and shell foundry in Woolwich Arsenal have received a considerable portion of the machinery, and are being furnished on an improved scale. The following appointments have been made at the Admiralty Lieutenant W. A. Brownlow, to the Royal Albert, for disposal ; George Powys, midshipman, to the Devastation ; William Parsons and G. T. Medd, midshipmen, to the Sanspareil. Country Markets. LIVERPOOL-FEB. 27. At this morning's market we had a very fair attendance of buyers, but their operations were rather restricted. Holders required late prices for wheat ; on American and Canadian flour, however, a reduction of 3d to 6d per barrel was snb• mitted to. Egyptian beans were rather dearer. Barley, oats, and oatmeal were unchanged in value. Indian corn was not lower in price, excepting soft-conditioned parcels on board ship, which were forced at 6d per qr. reduction. WAKEFIELD-Ftß. 27. There was no change in wheat, with the exception that sn• dry, in some instances, sold for is in advance. Good English barley was rather dearer. Other sorts were difficult to sell. Beans were fully as dear. Oats and shelling were slow of sale. EXETER—FEn. 2T. - - CORN.—Wheat, 7s 6d to 7s 9d ; barley, 5a Od to 611, grinding (10. Ot Od to Os Od. Oat s , 3s 0(1 to 3s 2.1. Beans, Os Od to 0 Od. Peas, 00s Od to 00s Od. FLOUR.—Fine, 42a Od to 41a Od ; seconds, 40a Od to 421 Od per sack. CATTLE. —There was a small supply of bullocks. Rest beef, from 103 6d to lls per score ; inferior, 9s 6d to 10a per score; fat calves, —d to Od per lb ; barrenners, Os Od to 0 41 Od. per score ; cows and calvet, 121. to 161. Us ; butchers' calves, Od to 7d per lb., rearins calves —s to a each. sheep, ewes and lambs, 01. Os to 01. Os per couple; ewes. lid to Od; wethers, —d 8i1; lambs, —to Od per lb. Pigs, large size, —s to —s ; second size, —s to —8; slips, —4 to —s ; suckers, —s to —s. Rough fat, 4id per lb. Pork carcases from Os 9d to 10s 9d per score. BRISTOL - SUGAR-FEB. 27. The market has been rather quiet this week, and the only sale reported is a cargo of 3,200 boxes Havannah for arrival, and for which former prices have been obtained. Refiners' prlduce still meets with a good demand, especially for all fine and middling qualities, and prices are fully as dear; hut pieces and treacle are rather dull of s tie. In rum we are without transactions to report, the recent arrivals not being yet ready for the market. COAL MARK Prices of Coal per ton at d. Bebside's Hartley 14 6 Longriclge's Wst Hartley 14 6 North Percy Hartley _l3 0 Walker Primrose 13 0 ranfield Moor l3 3 Walleend, &c. Pensher 15 Harton EL—FEB. 27. the close of the must. IVirsllsend, &o. cl. Framwellgate l6 0 corn Close l5 3 Eden Main l6 qaswell 18 0 [lough Hall 15 9 Kelloo 16 9 south Kelloe. 16 9 glhips at market... 3:?, I Sold. 3O COURSE OF EXCHANGE. -YESTERDAY. kmaterdam .. • • .... 11 i 6 Gibraltar ...... •• •• •• •• Ditto, three months .. 11 18 Leghorn ..........„ ,29 45 Rotterdam ............ 11 18% Genoa . 25 75 &ntworp .............. 25 50 Milan ...... • • ...... Brussels .............. 25 50 Venice ilamburgh ............ 13 B 4 Naples - . ...... ......• .. 43% kltona .. • • ............ Palermo .... •• " 129% Paris.— •• • •..... • • .... 25 27% Messina ... ... 130 Ditto • three months .. 25 70 Lisbon .. Marseilles ......• •• •• •• 25 70 , Oporto .• •• •• •• •• •••• • •• 52 Bourdeaux .. • • ........ ! Rio Janeiro ..... ....... •-. Frankfort-on -Maine •• .. 119% Buenos Ayres.... •• •• .. - Berlin ................ - ;New Yor k i6o dayesight -. I Vienna .......... •• .... 1 0 29 Philadelphia .... ...... ••rriesie......•• •• .... 10 30 palm or xtriatoN, rim oz. Petersburg ........... 37% Foreign Gold in Bars £3 17 9 Madrid. ••• .. •...., .... 49% Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0 Cadiz ......... •• ".... 49% Mexican Dollars .... 0 0 0 Barcelona ............ - , New Dollars .... Seville.. •• - .......... - !Saver in bars ...... 0 5 1% LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, FEB. 27. STOCK EXCHANGE.—There was an advance in prices, and a fair business was done, quotations closing as follows : South Eastern, 23i 4—Caledonian, 341—Midland, 84i s—. London :and North Western, 101 —Eastern Counties, 10j Lancashire and Yorkshire, 104—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 37/ —North British, Hi—Black burn, 6 per cent., 231—Bank of Liverpool, 21, MANCHESTER, FEB. 27. STOCK EXCHANGE.-- The market is active, and very firm. Cheshire Junction, 704—Blackburn, B.i—Sheffield, Ditto, Pref., 12A—Leeds, 101 .i--Eastern Counties, 101— Midlands, 85—D over, 2 3 11-16—London Stock, 10t4 — Gr eat Western, 62 1 — Lanca3ter and Preston shares, 22 p. Preston and Wyre, Pref., No. 2, 714. BIRMINGHAM, FEB. 27. STOCK EXCHANGE. —This market continues steady to-day. Groat Westerns closed at 68 j z d.—London and North Westerns, 106 i I—Midlands, 82 834 a d.--Bir mingham Canal, 92A 3—Birmingham Gas, buyers, 138-- Birmingham New Union Mill shares were done at n. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Jane Hallett, of Whitty Head, near Netherbury, Dorset, buffered for many years from a bad leg. From the knee to the ancle it had several wounds, so that she was unable to stand or move about the house. She tried a variety of means and applica tions, but without obtaining a cure. By the blessing of God and using only three pots of Poor Man's Friend, and taking three boxes of pill', she was perfectly cured. Dr. Roberts's Poor Man's Friend, a:: mwoeudinedinseanvdenedrourp. tions of every description, is sold in pots, ls. lid. and 2s. 9J. each. His Piluhu Antiscrophulas, fur all im. purities of the blood, is sold in boxes, ls. lid., 2s. 9d,, a throughout. 6d. , lls. t , h e andu U n ited e ch, Kingdom.by all LBIRTHS. OF • SON. Cu On the 26th inst., at Cheddington R ectory, Lady Emmet Emmett. On the 26th inst., at 1, Alfred Villas, Enfield-road, Kings la - OF A bACCIIITER. R On ti mes Wile 27th inst., at Tring-park, llerts, the wif e o f th e Mrs. William Henry Dows e t t. On the 26th inst., at 3, B e df ord-row, Clapham-rise, the wife of J. P. Lafrentz, Esq. e n v d . , J liams. Ii On the 24th ire`„ at AR,II ED. T aunton, Lieutenant-C o l one l E van Mor hc.late Ad gan, of St. Helen's, S wansea, to Maria R o d ney , d aug ht er of tmiral Winthrop.] On the 24th inst, at B r i g h ton, Francis Stedman Ashby, of Eling, near S outhampton, to Eliz a b e th R e b ecca J upp, the eldest daughter of Henry Jupp, E sq „ o f Ch es t nu t - l o d ge, Cob ham, Surrey, On the 27 th inst , at Hawke-ho use , S un b ury, S arah, w i fe of Alderman Sidney . , aged 49. On the 2Gth inst., at Aston House, Tetsworth, Oxfordshire, An na Maria, w if e of Sir Henry John Lambert, Bart., aged 57e On the 26th inst., Mr. A. Bachhofl'ner, of Everett-street, Russell -square, aged 41. On the 25th inst., at Peckham-rye, Nicholas Skottowe, Esq., aged 67. On the 25th inst., at Gravesend, Captain William Rogers, of th e W est York Rifles, late 96th Regt., aged 33. On the 26th i ns t ., G eorge J ames Edward B rown, Esq., of T ostock-place, Bury St. Ed m u n d' s , age d 34. On the 26th i ns t. , a t Ch e lt en h am, A nne W . Duncan, wife of Major Hugh Mackenzie, c engal Army. On the 23d inst., Mr. John Sutton, of Forest-row, Dalston, late of Union-court, Old Broad-street, city, aged 80. LONDON : Printed and Pnbliqhed by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The ,Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savor, in the count,' of Middleatx, Saturday, February 28, 1857. I