The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-25 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.: The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool lack at four o'clock, at which time the house presented very animated appearance. The space before the throne was crowded, and the galleries at each side were also very fully attended by ladies. A large number of the members of the House of Commons were present. Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, occupied a seat in the peeresses gallery. Lord SAYE and SELE presented a petition from nd h Herefo r d, deprecating the bombardment of Canton and the e x p e di t i on to P ers i a, an d pray i ng that the house would exercise a proper control over the foreign policy of the Government. • ROYAL MARINE FORCE BILL. On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this bill was read a third time. THE HOSTILITIES AT CANTON. The Earl of DERBY having presented a number of petitions emanating from various localities, and express. ing, as the noble earl said, what he believed to be the feeling of the country generally, complaining of the un necessary destruction of life at Canton, resulting from the unnecessary bombardment of that city by the British naval forces under Admiral Seymour, by direction of Sir d. Bowring, and setting forth that that constitutional principle which invests the Queen alone with the pre rogative of declaring war and making peace has been violated in these proceedings, and praying that an order might be immediately issued for suspending hostilities, and recalling the three officers by whom, and at whose instance, the prerogative of the Crown has been violated, proceeded to introduce the motion of which he had given notice. He said—My lords, I am 'now about to address the highest judicial assembly in the world, and I wish I could persuade myself that in so doing every member of that august assembly would approach the consideration of the important question I have to bring before them in a purely judicial spirit ; that they would regard it in reference to no considera. Lions except those of equity, justice, and humanity— (hear, hear)—and, above all, they would dismiss from their minds on this occasion every consideration con nected with party politics or party feeling—(hear)—for, Illy lords, if I can succeed in persuading this house to deal with the question in this purely judicial spirit, I for own part have such entire confidence in the strength of my case, that I should have no fear whatever as to the decision to which your lordships would arrive. My lords, I confess I am likely to be on this occasion bat an irn -Perfect advocate ; but, however imperfect I may be, I can assure your lordships I am an advocate on conviction of the justice of the cause I have espoused—an advocate disioterested—tbe unpaid advocate of the cause which I believe to be that of true policy, of justice, and of humanity. (Hear, hear.) lam here, my lords, the advocate of weakness against power, the advocate of perplexed and bewildered barbarism against the unjust and arrogant demands of overwhelming and self-satisfied civilisation, the advocate of the feebleness of a distant and half-civilised nation against the overpowering might of the British empire. (Cheers.) And, my lords, it in no way deters. me or creates the slightest doubt on my mind in the strength of my case when I reflect that I am bring ing it before a tribunal composed of British peers ; nor does it deter or discourage me when I remember that that case must be taken upon the statements and official documents furnished by the very parties whose conduct lam about to impugn. On those documents lam con tent to rest—on those documents I rely, and on the facts and statements contained in those documents I appeal With the most entire confidence to the judgment of your lordships. (Hear.) I would pray your lordships to consi der for a moment what is the position in which we now find our relations with China. As your lordships are aware We have now for a very considerable number of years carried on trade with that country to a vast extent, a trade of deep importance to this country, and which was largely and rapidly increasing—a trade of vital import. ance to England in the supply of one of the principal ar ticles of consumption, tea ; and in that single article, in the course of the last ten years, from 41 million lbs. to 87 million lbs. a year have been consumed. In silk, too, though he had not the figures, the increase had been almost a.s large an d as rap id . U pon t h e who l e, that trade, though it has been carried on under peculiar circum- Stances and under considerable difficulties, has been car ried on with great success, and with mutual satisfaction, to the advantage of both countries. Well, my lords, it new appears th a t w ith ou t any di ssat i s f act i on h av i ng a risen, without any previous warnings that trade, in the principal article to which I have alluded, has been com pletely put an end to ; the most hostile and the bit. terest feelings have been engendered between the people of Canton and the British merchants ; between the British traders and the native population. But not only is your trade stopped, and the goods of your mer chants sequestered to the extent, as I am informed, of something like a milion and a half of dollars—not only have all your commercial speculations with China been suspended, but at this moment, without warrant from the Crown, and without any declaration of war, we are in a tqate of actual war with China—a war carried on under ey.cumistancee of aggr ava ti on an d sever i ty un k nown i n the ordinary wars of modern times. You had seizures of the merchant junks, the capture and destruction of the forts of a friendly power ; you have had the walls of a friendly city battered down and stormed, but without succeeding in making a practicable breach, and you have had the residences of private and unresisting persons fired upon by a British admiral, and a de fenceless town bombarded and shattered by British been of war. Is this a state of things which your lordships can justify to yourselves, or which Par liament can justify to itself, to pass over in silence, without demanding from the Minister a full explanation— if explanation can be given ; and if not, without stamp ing it with your reprobation 1 (Hear.) My lords, I will endeavour to state the facts of the case as dispas sionately as I can, without exaggerating or colouring, and if in bringing the case before you I am compelled to make a very considerable trespass upon your patience, I am quite sure that as long as I confine myself strictly to the subject, I may with confidence throw myself on that indulgence for which I have so often had occasion to be deeply grateful to your lordships. It may be convenient, in the first 'instance, that I should call your lordships' attention to the particular articles of the treaty, the al leged infraction of which has been made the excuse for these violent proceedings. The treaty in question is the one that is termed the Supplementary Treaty, and was entered into on Oct. 8, 1843, and supplementary to the original treaty of 1842, which, as your lordships will re- Member, was in some measure extorted from the Chinese Government at the close of the war. The two articles of this supplementary treaty to which I shall call your lordship' attention are the 9th and the 17th. The 9th article runs as follows : "If lawless natives of China, having committed crimes or offencea against their own government, shall flee to Hong Kong, or to the English ships of war, or English mer chant ships, for refuge, they shall, if discovered by the English officers, be handed over at once to the Chi nese officers for trial and punishment ; or if, before such disco very be made by the English officers, it should be ascer tained or suspected by the officers of the government of China whither such criminals and offenders have fled, a communication shall be made to the proper English officer in order that the said criminals and offenders may be rigidly searched for, seized, and, on proof or admission of their guilt, delivered up." Now, my lords, under the terms of this article, it follows that any Chinese offender being discovered in the colony of Hong Kong, or on board a British man-of-war, or an English merchant ship, is not to be seized by the Chinese authorities, but is to be demanded of the British consul, • and by him seized and given up. The 17th article pro vides that:— " Various small vessels belonging to the English nation, called schooners, cutters, lurches, &c., have not hitherto been chargeable with tonnage dues. It is now agreed, in relation to this class of vessels, which pl y b etween Hong Kong and the city, and the city , and M acao,that eh if all t , hez only carry passengers, letters, and . _ baggage, they heretofore, pay no tonnage dues but if these small craft carry any dutiable articles, no matter how small the quan tity may be, they ought, in principle, to pay their full ton nage dues. But this class of small craft are not like the large ships which are engaged in foreign trade ; they are constantly coming and going ; they make several trips a month, and are not like the large foreign ships, which, on entering the port, cast anchor at Whampoa. we were to place them on the same footing as the large foreign ships, the charge would be unequal ; therefore, after this, the smallest of th ese craft shall be rated at 75 tone, and the largest not to exceed 150 tons ; whenever they enter the port (or leave the Port with cargo), they shall pay tonnage dues at the rate of one mace per ton register. If not so large as 75 tons they shall still be considered and charged as of 75 tons • and if they exceed 150 t one , they shall be considered aslaragtetfo reign shi ps , and, like them, charged tonnage dues, of 5 mace per register ton. Foe-chow and the other ports ing none o f thi s ki n d o f intercourse, and none of this html of small craft, it would be unnecessary to make any arrangement as rards them. The follo win g are the rules by which they e are to be regulated ; — ls t British sailing letter or register i n Chinese, and &c., shall have a . Every schoo ner, cutter under the seal and signa ture of the chief suand.English, appearance. burth o Every schooner, perintendentof trade, describing her 'orals, and Fe e l, n , &c. 2d. sale are req u i red vessel, shall report herself, as larg e yes* she carries ca rgo .lieo, at th e B occe Tigris ; awl when pea, and s h a ll , ou ' shall a l so report herse lf a t Wham letter or register re Canton, deliver up her sailing permission from the 20 British Consul, who will obtain which she is not t o d°ll,o bore to discharge her cargo, the forfeiture of the pine wi such permission, under the general regtaationt,alct.ies laid down in the 3cl clause of an outward cargo is discharged, and trade. gistor 3;1, When l u V f h in en ten tLe d iT t w ak ar e d u on board, and the duties consul will restore the re P n Leal arranged and paid, the or sailing leiter, and allow the vessel to depart." Having read these articles, I ships' attention to the h e Ilsxt call your lord consul of the seizure of the lorehat niailheeryonthe British ground for the whole of the suPlelvehqi s r titut ,l es the Consul Parkes, writing to Sir J. 13o _, p ocee,angs. Y r excellency that the " Li ng on Oct. 8, "I have the honour to inform suddenly boa dad British lorcha Arrow-, while lyin n e e :Rh in the river near the Dutch Folly! pinionedleavi and carried this morning by a force of Chinese offiaese large size and heavy armament, who rin w ar boat of away nearly, the whole of her crew, 1?olY two ou t of 14 men on board, and added to this ac n t g significant insult of hauling down the nationaln violence the Now, my lords, this the consul and Sir J. le,er i- I P : nrn Plain is a gross violation of the treat of 1 cum_ lorcha was strictly and honourably ayßritisi •Ide.esell,ftthhen the seizure of those persons on board suspected of piracy undoubtedly was a viinasmuch as they o olation of the article of the treaty, consul, to have demanded them roefatthye tou i 0 waalac,.l this taken ug them away by force, but the ques tion veeee in the true sense of the term, or according to any reasonable and fair construction, a British vessel ? If not, and she was not carrying the British flag, and legally carrying the British flag, your f l a od r r a s s h i ps the will co m at once plain e t Rs of e ?beet British iti th whole co n s o u f l t a h n e d ca th s eso e, go vernment of Hong Kong is concerned, fa is to the ground. Now the circumstances of the case, as I have presented them to you, are most lamentable ; they would be deeply to be lamented if the representatives of the British Government could show that in pressing for re paration for this alleged injury every means had been exhausted to arrive at an amicable settlement ere they had recourse to force ; if they could show they had exercised forbearance and conciliation until every indulgence ap- ' preached to the very verge of weakness ; that they had left to the Chinese authorities every possible loophole to escape, and every opportunity to apologise—nay more, if such had been our conduct, that there were not the shadow or the shade of suspicion in the justice of our cause ; if there were not a flaw in our case—if, with all this, the consequences had been what they have been, I still say the state of things which has ensued would have been lamentable. But if I show that so far from this being the case—so far from forbearance and conciliation having been exhausted, the whole of the correspondence on the part of the British officials has been marked by the utmost arrogance and haughtiness; that in the terms in which they addressed the Chinese authorities they have exhibited throughout the utmost disrespect and discour tesy; that they have refused to accept any explanations, and have replied to every offer toexplain with threats and menaces; and if I can show that further than this the le gality of the demand is more than doubtful ; that in point of fact, in one sense of the word, according to the prin ciples of justice or equity, can the vessel in question be considered as a British merchant vessel, and conse quently that from the first to the last there has been no violation of the treaty there—l say that in the lament able occurrences that have taken place I shall have esta blished the position to which in the resolutions I am about to submit I have called upon your lordship to assent. In page 134 of the paper your lordships will find an explanation put forward on the part of the gen tleman whose name has been introduced as having been a party to the purchase of the lorcha Arrow—that gen tleman being Mr. Bloch, the Danish Consul. Now what was there to constitute this vessel a British vessel ? From this explanation it appears that she was built in Canton by a Chinese in 1854 ; she was owned by a Chinese; she was engaged in the coasting trade of China ; she was captured by pirates ; she was recap tured by the Chinese naval forces ; she was sold on ac count of the Chinese authorities to a Chinese Hong of Canton ; by that Hong she was sent over to the British colony of Hong Kong ; negotiations were then entered into to sell her to a Chinese resident of Hong Kong ; and the bargain was almost concluded, when a question arose as to the claim of the former owner, who claimed as having been the owner at the time of her cap ture. This man was also a Chinese—one Quan-tai—a re sident of Macao. The question was referred to arbitra tion, and the award of the arbitrator was this—that the sale from the Canton Hong to the Chinese resident of Hong Kong would be valid and effectual ; but a difficulty having been thrown in the way by the previous owner putting forward his claim,compensation should be paid to him to the extent of s2,loo—and by an arrangement which, I confess, I am at a less to understand, supposing the transaction to be bona fide--$l,OOO of that amount was to be paid by the purchaser, and the other 1,000 by the Chinese seller. And it appears further that Mr. Blank, out of friendship for his compradore, advanced the whole sum, and wrote off the $1,400 from the total amount of the purchase money. Then here is a vessel Chinese built, engaged in the Chinese trade, captured by Chinese pirates, recaptured by Chinese war junks, Chinese manned, Chinese bought, Chinese sold, and Chinese owned—and yet this is to be regarded as a Bri tish vessel entitled to claim the benefit of the treaty by which British merchant vessels are exempt from Chinese interference. (Hear.) How was this metamorphosis of a Chinese vessel into a British vessel accomplished 1 I will tell your lordships. In March, 1855, the local legis lature of Hong Kong passed an ordinance on the ground that " many illegal acts have resulted from the improper use of registers granted at Hong Kong under the provi sions of the imperial acts to vessels ernpl iyed solely in trading with the mainland of China, and it is necessary that legal trading should be protected and illegal trading prevented," and requiring by a series of enactments that all British vessels shall have either an imperial or colt). nial register, and that in the case of colonial vessels the colonial register shall be renewed annually, and that se curity shall be given to comply with all British regula tions in regard to merchant shipping. So far, no doubt, this ordinance might have had a beneficial effect in doing what it was intended to do, viz., curbing the abuses that prevailed from the improper use of the register granted at Hong Kong to vessels employed solely in trading with the mainland of China-, , But there was in this bill an enactment o f a singtgat e leind : " And be it further enacted and ordained that it shall be lawful for Chinese residents within this colony to apply for and obtain colonial registers, provided the person or persons applying as owners be registered lessees of Crown lands within this colony, and that such owner or owners tender as securities for the due performance by them of all the requirements of this ordinance to other crown lessees, and that suoh owners and such lessees be severally reported by the Registrar-General to the satisfaction of the Colonel Secretary to be each worth 2,000 dollars in this colony ; and should such owner or owners bo member or members of any shop or partnership, that the seal of such shop or partnership be also affixed to the security to be given by such owner." Well, this bill was sent home for the assent of the Crown —it was referred to the law advisers of the Board of Trade—the Board of Trade having started an objection which must occur to every one of your lordships from the face of the ordinance itself—for there is no rule more strictly adhered to (and it is absolutely necessary it should be so still)—that no colonial legislature can pass any law or act upon any law which is contrary and re pugnant to the law of England. But not only was this ordinance contrary and repugnant to the law of Eng land, but in regard to the very point or, which the ques tion of the treaty was brought to bear, it repealed and annulled the whole law of England with regard to the registration of merchant vessels. The whole law of England, which requires that to constitute an English vessel she must be wholly owned by British subjects, and navigated by an English crew, was swept aside at once by that ordinance. And this seems to be the opi nion of the Board of Trade, for Mr. Booth, by direction of the Secretary of State, in writing to the Governor of Hong Kong, says : " There is nothing in the act providing that the Chinese residents to whom colonial registers may be granted should be British subjects, nor are any local limits assigned with in which the register is to be in force ; and if it be intend ed that the grant of a colonial register shall confer on the vessel the rights and privileges attaching to a British vessel, it appears to my lords extremely questionable whether this departure from the Merchant Shipping Act (17 and 18 Vict., cap. 104), according to which British ownership is an essential condition (and, in fact, the only condition) of British registry, should be sanctioned by her Majesty. It also appears to my lords deserving of consi deration whether, looking to the effect of registry on the titles to ships, it is desirable to apply sea-going colonial ships owned by British subjects a system of registry dif ferent from that which is provided for in the Imperial act. I am, however, to point out to you that by section 547 of the Imperial act, the le. , islative authority of any British possession is empowered by any act or ordinance, con firmed by her Majesty in Council, to repeal wholly or in part any provisions of that act relating to ships regis tered in such possession, but no such act or ordinance is to take effect until such approval has beet proclaimed in the possession, or until such time thereafter as may be fixed by the act or ordinance for the pur pose. The ordinance in question does not appear to have been passed in exercise of the power given by the clause of the Imperial act just cited, and unless it should appear to Lord J. Russell that there are any special circumstances such as to justify the departure from the p o li cy of the Im perial act as to ownership in the case of vessels registered at Hong Kong, it appears to my lords that her Majesty's ap proval cannot properly be given to the present ordinance." Now my lords, mark—l am not at this moment going to discuss the substantial question of the merits of the ordinance, but I am simply dealing with its legality. Observe, no such ordinance could have been passed ex cept under the provisions of the act 17th and 18th Vic., cap. 104. But this ordinance was passed in March, 1855, whereas the act 17 and 18 Vic. did not come into operation until May, 1855 ; consequently and un doubtedly, then, the ordinance was not passed in pur suance of the powers given by that act, which I apprehend cannot have such a retrospective operation as to have reference to an ordinance passed in the month of March previous. Except under the sanction of this act there can be no foundation for the ordinance, and no power on the part of the legis lature of Hong Kong to pass or her Majesty to confirm such an ordinance. (Hear, hear.) But I waive for the moment the question of the enabling statute of the Im perial Parliament being appealed to by a sort of retro spective operation to justify this proceeding, and I goon to the more substantial part of the case. I should, how ever, state perhaps Attorney-General un to the th o at an answer was given by the re g gong Colonial see - tary. Ile say s : "The colony o f H ong Yong exceeding, at th e present, tina' with e 60,000aChinese population ten Chinese who can legallyi vi s be called t ri hardly contains ti l s i h e e t he Chinese subjects, for it has not been deemed a here, and the recent se ttlement o o n f a th n e ra colony prevents the posTsi h b having becom e su bj ec t s by g t theirprp or tion of th e respecta b le part o f birth.e ili r y eat of o this population have, however, Constituted themselves and of b y y y ears permanent(a ten tenure t oi settlement I :o w e i h i i t c h havean bona tide British subjects, by becoming Crown tenants of intention of perfecting themselves, l aie e nlv a i sons of their descendants British leaseholds f i d i tpsi incapable), cf e r oa rp al bo clearestnle'terms secundum leg es, to the . Crown tenants, British soar, taken up themgranting of ie r registers as well as de facto. . sters to such Chinese rown, deemed it my I , subjects Ju t t herefore, as law as l4tbytise the so far as in them lay made themselvescombecoming e nd whose discharge of obligation could be guaranteed by l other Crown tenants." Now cannotKng has help h ere fallen into an error, otherwise he is attemp tin g to v thinking that t he Attorne y - General of Hong indicate one illegal act by another, for the purpos e of granting British ri g hts to aliens who I o have adopted the expedient of means is this, that they 999 years, without requiring to settlers for Now remember granting leases fen s have never been naturalised. But I believe what he them to take out letters 0 British subjects ship is that she must be wholly British Crown, or persons that the one single condit —natural-born subjects of the naturalisation or denies ef t o h w e rneegdisbtyratioa of a British who have taken out letters of D oath of allegiance. tion, and subsequen I Ile, by the British Such is the condition within which a n of British o wner law. any one can claim the privileges _ . But these enaetrnents have been set aside in ship and the right to carry the British flag• of Hong tly taken the . . , the 547th clause of Kong, under the supposed sanction of what may be the fin •ly , se pleat act,which points out not on done, but the what are ~ e manner in which m y iegill i a . the colony the conditions under which the co lonial tore can pass this act ? The words of the ordinance must be confirmed by order of her Majesty in council, those orders must be sent oat with such confirmation to the colony, and wh en th e y arr i ve , s h a ll h a ve no force until they have been publicly proclaimed along with the order in council. But what really has happened ? No order to this day has been passed, but the Secretary of State has taken on himself to signify that the act has been sent out to the colony. I say that that act is so much wastepaper, not having been co n fi rme d by th e Q ueen in council,. nor proclaimed s ubs equen tl y t o i ts rrr i va l a t Hong Bong. But I g further. Recollect that all the,e questions beiiron issue,the important p o i n t s a t namely—was this a British vessel legally, and being a British vessel was there an infraction of the treaty ? I say that she was not a Bri tish ve s s e l l ega lly, nor un d er un d er any sanction but that of an order which was issued in the latter end of 1855, but which did not come into operation until the February of the f o ll ow i ng year. Thi s act, was t e pa p er as i t is, full of flaws as it is, arrived in the colony in 1856 as a wholesale legalisation of a register professing to have been granted in September, 1855. And here indictment against dis cussing the questio n as if it were a cr i m inal against the Chinese for having violated the treaty. I do not know whether they have violated the treaty, but certainly, unless the lorcha was a British vessel, there was no violation of the treaty. But let us look to the subject of thi s co l on i a l or di nance , l e t us see whether it is one that ought t o b e approve d. Recollect that it may be perfectly possible and legitimate to give the Chinese residents in our colonies all privileges within your limits, bat no man will contend that you have a right to confer on them privileges derogatory to the inalienable rights of the Chinese Government. (" Hear, from Lord Grey) Chinese subjects are, day by day, carrying on a coasting trade in the waters of China, and what do you do ? You issue an order in Hong Kong which says, in derogation of these Chinese rights, that these Chinese shall be absolved from their natural allegiance, may carry on any trade they please, and laugh to scorn the Chinese officials who may attempt to resist them, pleading the British flag and the colonial register as empowering them to laugh at their own sove reign. (Hear, bear.) Would you venture to pass any such act in reference to any state whose power was nearly on a balance with your own ? (Hear, hear.) Try it by our English notions, and say whether you dare pass ordinances freeing foreigners from all liability to the laws of their own country. (Hear, hear.) But un less you are prepared to say that this ordinance was good in law and sound in justice, you cannot say that any vio lation of the treaty was committed, because you cannot say the lorcha was a British vessel. It is true there was a British subject sn board, a young man who had been put on board as the nominal master, and who literally knew so little about the vessel that he could not tell her owner : he understood that she belonged to Mr. Bloch, compradore at Hong Kong. (Hear.) Then the colonial register did not come into effect for 6 months after, and when it did, it had no validity, for it bad not been issued under the proper conditions. I ask you, whether in the case of such a British vessel lying in the Chinese waters, and havi ng on b oar d two notorious pirates, being visited in the absence of any British au thority, and these men taken out for trial---I ask you, if in such case her M a j es t y ' s G overnment declared war against China, whether it would not be considered as a most despicable cause of war ? (Hear.) I ask you, my lords, as men sti mu l a t e d b y a sense of honour, and as British legislators, whether you will sanction an act such as this on the part of her Majesty's advisers ? I ask you whether you, er any of you, in your hearts and consciences, would be satisfied to rest a declaration of war on such a pretext ? but still more, whether you would be satisfied to make war without a declaration on such a pretext 1 But I have not done with this part of the case yet. Suppose that this British vessel was lying in the waters of Canton, had she the British flag flying? Now as to whether the flag was flying or not, there is considerable discrepancy in the evidence. One master of a vessel in the aeighbourhood declares that he saw the flag hauled down, and others testify to the same fact ; but on the other hand the Chinese who boarded the ves sel all aver that they saw no flag hauled down, nor do ' they believe that th ere was an y l ag fl y i ng, and not sees ing any English flag they did n o t cons id er that they committed any violation of the treaty. So much for the matter of fact, but there is a reference made by the im perial commander, to the effect that the flag must not have been flying, b ecause, h e says, it is notorious that the British merchant ships do not hoist their flags until they are going aw a y, th us su b stantiating a declaration to which no answer has as yet been made. I believe it 18 now notori ous a t C anton that the flag was not flying ; but if flying, the next question is, was it legally flying, bad the master a right to hoist it, or did he only do it when he came near the port, in order to deceive the officials ? I omitted, in speaking of the ordinance, to notice the great facility it gave to smuggling. I believe there was always a good deal of smuggling, but that the ordinance increased it greatly. The colonial treasurer writing in Oct., 1855, says : "The act has been extremely beneficial to the respect able Chinese settled here, since it has already increased the coasting trade in British goods and opium." The ordinance, it appears, has been extremely benefi cial in enabling British subjects to trade in opium. (Bear, bear.) Further, with respect to an ordinance of this kind, entirely altering the stipulations of the treaty, your lordships will be surprised to hear that it never was communicated to Chinese Government. I see my noble friend looking at the book. I know it was com municated subsequently, but not when the ordinance was issued. What did you do ? When two lorchas were seized and confiscated for smuggling the consul applied to Yeh, and then for the first time this ordinance canoe into notice. But these licences to carry the British flag were, under the act, renewable from time to time, the original register being deposited, and this must be done before the expiration of each year, and if not so deposited the licence to become null and void. The terms oe the act on that subject are clear and decisive, providing that any deviation from the regulations shall incur the forfeiture of ship and cargo. Further, it says that the renewal must be effected four weeks before the end of each year. Now, under this ordinance there is no penalty, but it is clear that if at the end of the year there is no renewal, it is in force for one year and no longer. Now if there be any doubt on this matter, I appeal to Sir J. Bowring. He says : " I have your despatches dated 9th and 10th, with their inclosures, on the subject of the arrest of sundry Chinamen on board a vessel called the Arrow, bearing the British flag, and commanded by a subject of her Majesty. The question presents two inquiries —let, the rights of the ves sel in question ; and 2d, the conduct of the Chinese autho rities. It appears on examination that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag ; the licence to do so expired on the 27th Sept., from which period she has not been en titled to protection. You will seed back the register to be delivered to the Colonial-office." Here was the statement of Sir J. Bowring, that after the 27th Sept. no protection could legally be granted. I should like to know whether any honest, straightfor ward man would, after such a declaration, justify his de mands on the plea that the Chinese were ignorant that the licence had expired. I say that such a plea could not be sustained, and yet for this the country is involved in a disastrous war. ‘Vhat is the defence ? Sir J. Bow ring says that the licence had expired, but that the Chi nese did not know it. Therefore, because you have no claim, and your adversary does not know it, you think yourself justified in using threats and coercion. I must now go to adifferent part of the case—l mean the claim for the free admission of British subjects into the City of Canton. With respect to this point, your lordships will find at page 185 of the blue book the earliest statement on the subject. Ido not think it quite clear that the original treaty intended to confer the right to the extent to which it was subsequently exercised, but that it merely meant to confer on British subjects and British merchants the liberty of carrying on their trade and pur suing their business within the walls of Canton. I doubt whether it was intended that the British should have per mission to live within the walk. I must now trouble your lordships by reading some documents. In 1848 Mr. Bonham was our plenipotentiary, and as the time ap proached when the treaty should come into operation he wrote for instructions to Lord Palmerston, then Secre tary for Foreign Affairs, asking whether he should press for the admission of British subjects against the mani fest disinclination and apprehension of the Chinese. He says— "lf the Government is disposed to insist on admission to the city of Canton it will be necessary to send me full instructions, and the means of carrying them into effect." He adds— " Without a military demonstration I am satisfied that we cannot attempt an entrance." Mr. Dontiam proceeds to R a y th a t the ..luetano. of 4b Chinese authorities arose from their dread of the fanati cism of the people, whom they feared they had not suffi cient power to keep in order. In answer to that despatch Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Bonham, Oct. 7, 1848, a despatch, which does great credit to the good sense of the noble lord. Ile says : "Foreign Office, Oct. 7, 1848. " Sir,—l have received your despatch of the 20th July, inclosing the Chi nese co mmissioner's answer to your letter of the 21st Juno, inclosed in your previous despatch of that date. The question which you have brought under the con sideration of her Majesty's Government, as arising out of the evident disinclination of the Chinese commissioner to give effect to the arrangement by which British subjects were to be allowed free access to the city of Cantonin April next is one on which it is difficult for me to give you positive in structions. On one hand, evil consequences may flow from allowing the Chi nese t o re f use or evade the performance of contracted engagement s; o n the other hand, it is inexpe dient to resort to force to compel them to execute promises from the performance of which no real benefit to British interests would accrue. It has always appeared to me to be doubtful whether the right of entering the city of Can ton would be prod uc ti ve of any material advantage to Bri tish residents; while it has been plain that the unrestricted entrance of British residents into that city might lead to disputes and collisions between British subjects and Chi nese, the consequences of which might be serious. I now understand from yourdespatch that the principal advantage which would result from free access to the city would be, that on special occasions tho superintendent or the consul would be able to go to the Chinese authorities, and to com municate personally with them. This, undoubtedly, might often be useful, and such personal intercourse might fre quently lead to an easier settlement of disputes, and to the maintenance of a good understanding. But this advantage might be gained without a general and indiscriminate ac cess for all British subjects to the city, because it might be arranged that whenever the superintendent or consul should wish to communicate with the Chinese Governor, they should send word to him, and that then he should send an escort to attend them through the city, and to convey them back again ; and to this the objection would not apply which the Commissioner urges against the general admis sion of British subjects to the city. I should wish, however, to know what practical advantage i n regard to commerce the British residents at Canton now sustain by not being allowed to enter the city, and what practical advantages, beyond those of pleasure and amusement, British subjects would derive from the power of entering the city when they chose. There seems reason to fear that at first the appearance of foreigners without escort or protection in the ' to assault them ; and that the police of s th t es r e e o e t t to s ow o inn f Bra t u h il e gth ci r t: o , t m 4 i might a te i :n e p o : the the lower 00t classe s or alt o f Chi -1 11 THE SITN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1857. force to protect them. It might therefore be arranged that for some time the entrance of British residents into the city should be subject to fixed regulations as to times, number, escort, etc., so as to insure the safety of those who might go in. It is probable that when the novelty of their ap pearance was over, and when the shopkeepers and mer chants of the town found that the visit of foreigners tended to the advantage of their trade, as would probably be the ,ease, the people would grow indifferent to that which they would have become accustomed to, and that thus, in pro cess of time, the precautionary regulations might be re laxed, and in the end a better state of feeling might be es tablished between the Chinese and the foreigners. But as long as the foreigners are wholly excluded from the city, it seems difficult to see how the first steps towards such a result can be taken." Mr. Bonham, who was a man of great personal expe rience in China, wrote in answer to this— , "Itis my belief that no material advantage to com merce would be gained by the admission of British sub jects, at all events nothing commensurate to the cost." The result of the whole was summed up in a letter written by Lord Palmerston's direction to the India and China Association on June 25, 1849. " I am to state to you, in reply, that her Majesty's Go vernment have no intention to renounce the right of en tering the city of Canton, although they are not prepared, at present, to resort to hostilities with China in order to enforce that right. Her Majesty's Government are not ignorant that so me i nconven i ence ma y result from th e adopti on o f a po li cy of moderation in th i s instance; b ut as the practical advantage which could be derived by Bri tish trade from free access into the interior of Canton is probably not very great • while the effort to obtain the immediate f u lfil ment of t he Ch i nese engagemen t in this respect would be costly , and might lead to a great loss of life and d es t ruc ti on of property, and to a considerable in terruption to British trade in that quarter of China, and might, moreover, seriously affect the trade at the other ports, her Maj es ty' s G overnment are o f opinion that the general commercial interests of the country are best con• suited by not pushing matters to extremities on the pre sent occasion." Thus your lordships will see that in 1849 Lord Palmer ston, acting upon the information of Mr. Bonham, a gen tleman thoroughly versed in the subject, came to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to proceed to en• force the treaty which had been concluded. I now come to the period when Mr. Bonham retired for a period from his post, and was succeeded by Dr., nowSirJ. Bow ring. Now Id o not w i sh to say an ythi ng disrespectful of Sir J. Bewring, for whose attainments I have a sin cere admiration, but I must frankly confess it appears to me that upon the subject of admission to Canton he labours under a species of monomania. (Hear.) I be lieve he thinks of his admission into Canton the first thing in the morning and the last thing at night—indeed if he wakes in the middle of the night I should think his thoughts at once run on the same subject. (gear.) I do not imagine that he would think any sacrifice too great which should end in the official reception of Sir J. Bow ring by the authorities of Canton. (Laughter.) In the despatch which was addressed to Sir J. Bowring upon his appointment as governor of the colony, it was im pressed upon him that n . o endeav ours were to be made to carry out the treaty by which British subjects were to have admittance to Canton which would endanger life. The words of this important despatch ran thus : " Her Majesty has been pleased. to grant to y ou a com mission appointing you a superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, under the act of 3d and 4th Will. IV., cap. 0 ; and in order to avo id any cavil on the part of the Chinese authorities, her Majesty has been fur ther pleased to grant you a full power as her Majesty's plenipotentiary. I have to state to you that it is the anxious desire of her Majesty's Government to avoid all irritating discussions with that of China. It will, of course, be your duty carefully to watch over, and to insist upon, the performance by the Chi nese authorities of the engagements which exist between the two coun tries. But you will not push argument on doubtful points in a manner to fetter the free action of your government ; and you will not resort to measures of force without pre vious reference home, except in the ext reme case of such measures being required to repel aggres s i on , or to protect the lives and properties of British subj ects. " dater t In reply h ttoe judgment thisSir J. of Bowringh says, o f course, he will theome autho ri ti es , b u t h e concludes by at least hinting that he did not himself con. cur in that judgment. His reply contains this expres. sion— " Had I not felt that the strong expressions in your lord ship's despatch, which call upon me to avoid all irritating discussions with the Chinese, imposed extrem e caution and hesitation in all ray proceedings, I ;Mould have ventured to anticipate the pleasure of communicatin g in my very first despatch that this vezatageestio had been happily and peaceably decided, and that I had been received within the walls by the high authorities of China." Among his other acquirements, Sir J. Bowring has, I believe, a considerable proficiency in the Chinese lan guage ; and he at all times appears to have thought that if he could only obtain admittanee into Canton, and have an opportunity of haranguing the Chinese, in their own tongue, all difficulties would be at an end. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) About the period at which I have new arrived a change of ministry took place, and my noble friend near me (the Earl of Malmesbury) became Foreign Minister, My noble friend addressed a despatch to Sir J. Bowring, requesting that nothing might be done in the matter until the return of Mr. Bonham. Of course Sir J. Bo wring bowed to the orders of the Secre tary of State, but he concludes his reply thus : " I venture, most emphatically, to assure your lordship that I never should have presumed to solicit the authority from her Majesty's Government, for undertaking the set tlement of the long-protracted question as to our right of access to that city, had I not been fully persuaded, after a very long residence ilk, and knowledge or, Canton, that the time was singularly favou ra bl e for effecting the object, mad that I could have effected it without endangering the pub lic peace, and with great advantage to our social, political and commeroial relations with Chi na ." , It is one of the peculiarities of Sir J. Bowring's views of this subject that every time is the most favourable time for putting those views into effect. At one time it is because things are tranquil, at another because they are disturbed, but in the end it is always the same, always a time " singularly favourable for the effecting the views " which he had as much at heart. The following extract would perhaps put their lordships more fully in possession of this characteristic than any further state ment he could make. In February, 1854, Lord Claren don sent to Sir J. Bowring a despatch containing this passage " There are, unquestionably, points which it would be desirable to secure, and to which we have even a right by treaty ; and amongst those I would mention free and un restricted intercourse with the Chinese authorities, and free admission into some of the cities of China, especially Canton. The treatment of these questions requires, how ever, much caution ; for if we should press them in menac ing language, and yet fail in carrying them, our national honour would require us to have recourse to force ; and, in order to obt a i n resu lt s , th e pract i ca l a d van t a ge of whi c h is not clearly d emons t ra t e d, we m i g h t p l ace in peril the vast commercial interests which have already grown up in China, and which, with good and temperate management, will daily acquire greater extension." In reply to this comes the following from Sir J. Bow ring : " It cannot be denied that wo are entitled to demand re dress of grievances which we have suffered from violations and disregard of treaty obligations, and in my communica tions to the supremo authorities I propose to specify the following as among the most prominent—Non-admission into Canton city; difficulty of obtaining personal inter course with the authorities. It is not my intention to de mand an interview with the Imperial Commissioner at the present moment. Au a general rule of conduct in China, I intend to demand nothing which I am not prepared to en force. But Ido not think I should be warranted in pro ceeding to Pekin without giving the Imperial Commis sioner the opportunity of meeting me, if he be willing to recognise my right to an official reception within the walls of Canton. Should he consent to this we shall have gained a very important point ; should he refuse, we shall have another important grievance." (Loud laughter.) To this there came a further commu nication from Lord Clarendon, in these words : " It is on all accounts desirable that you should obtain access to the Imperial Commissioner at Canton ; but there is no reason to expect that you will be more successful in doing so than the ministers of France and the United States—(laughter)—and you will use every precaution for ascertaining beforehand that you will not meet with any indignity that will require to be avenged, and this more particularly at a moment when the aid of the British naval force in the Chinese seas might not be available for that purpose." It is certainly to be regretted that my noble friend (Lord Clarendon) used the concluding expression of this de spatch, as it would seem to imply that there was some idea that at a future time there certainly might be a British naval force available for the purpose hinted at. Ido not Wipe. Oho♦ :.Ica 111 Lie mind of my noble friend, but the choice of words is by no means fortunate. One more extract from these papers will show your lordships that Sir J. Bowring was by no means inclined to give up his opinions on this subject. On the 9th of July, 1855, he wrote thus : " Finding that Mr. Consul Alcock has experienced many difficulties in communicating with or getting access to the higher authorities in Canton, I thought the opportunity a favourable one—(laughter)—of again makitb-, overtures to the Imperial Commissioner, with a view to the establishment of more amicable intercourse. I enclose to your lordship a copy of my letter to his Excellency dated the 11th of June. To that letter ho has not condescended to reply, and I can b are to pr ocee d t o th e her r now anticipate nothing but a continuanc e o f t h e proud re pulsiveness of the Viceroy. It wouldmbaojeidstlye fforrigmateetNo use any language of displeasure or of menace, a lt ogether help less as lam in the absence of the fleet. l am i nformed by theNan kin, oiDr i l itl f h, o aa n tn . dh C i s a t potalioninl peremptory .h einstructions Stewart, Admiralof there. But I am s till o f opinion that, until the city question at C anton is settled, a there is little hope of our relations bei ng placed on any might be brought thing th e about h settlementlike without it a o satisfactoryut of h anyt reisc said city (,ri (g foundationane dancer t questionto o our ; and, moreover, that groat interests in China. In my matured judgment it has been delayed much too long." Now, my lords, I have shown the state of these two questions, totally different from each other, which I have been obliged to take up separately an d dwell u pon at some length, because from this moment the two are com• bined and intertwined together in such a manner that it is no longer !possible to separate them. In looking at the further correspondence I confess that I look with feelings of some shame at the contrast between the lan guage and the tone of the correspondence o e the part of the British officials, as compared with that on the part of the Chinese. I must say, my lords —and a few pas- I me out in so saying — that the language o f th e Chi nese is throughout court eous, res p e ctful, and ge n tl em anly, sages which I will ca l l to your notice will, I thi n k, bear while that of the British officials is discourteous, disre spectful, and ungentlemanly. These are strong terms, my lords, but I think that I can justify there. It was on the Bth of October that the grievance took place in connection with the lorcha the Arrow. On that day, Consul Parkes, who appear s t o possess great activity, made representations to Sir J. Bowring, t o C o mmis. sioner Yeb, and to Commodore Elliot. lu reply to this ' Sir J. Bowring writes in these terms with hi s instruc tions to the consul :-- "You will inform the Imperial Commissioner that I re cluia an apology for what has taken place, and an 1444uK7 ance that the British flag shall in future be respected ; that 48 hours are allowed for this communication, which being passed, you are instructed to call on the naval authorities to assist you in enforcing redress." And as another specimen of this style of commnnication by the English authorities, I will read to your lordships the first letter addressed by Sir J. Be wring to Commis sioner Yeh. This document runs thus : " Hong Kong, Nov. 10, 1850.—Sir,----His Excellency the naval Commander-in-Chief, Sir M. Seymour, has com municated to me copies of his late correspondence with your excellency. In the hope of preventing a recurrence of the p resen t un f ortunate state of th i ngs at Canton, his excellency has proposed that, as elsewhere, there should be free intercourse between the authorities within and foreign representatives without the city. This proposition your excellency declines to entertain. You insist not only in confounding it with the past discussions of the treaty right of all foreigners to enter the city, but in maintaining that the right itself is shown to have been definitely abandoned in a despatch from my predecessor, Mr. Bonham, dated 9th April, 1849. The passage cited is not quoted in full by your excellency. Referring to the non-fulfilment of the I engagement entered into in 1847, Mr. Bonham proceeds, although entered into by K e yi ng, an d conf i rmed b y your i Emperor, t (the en gagement ) h as not been carried out ; the question at issue rests where it was, and must remain in abeyance. The discussion of it cannot at present be farther prosecuted between your excellency and myself. I can but repeat my regret at the unsatisfactory report which this evasion of the treaty will compel me to make to my Go vernment.' Your excellency seeks to construe as declara tory of its cessation for evermore, words simply signifying that discussion of our treaty right was suspended until further report of its repudiation could be made to her Ma jesty's Government. Pending this reference, Mr. Bonham called on British subjects to abstain from entering Canton. That the British Government had never abated au iota of its claim is shown by Mr. Bonham's letter of the 21st of August, 1819. This was written under instructions of Viscount Palmerston, then Principal Seoretary of State for Foreign affairs, and his excellency Seu was requested to transmit it to Pekin. The assumption of Seu himself, in his reply, dated 27th Aug., 1849, that the discussion was no more to be renewed, was at once rejected by Mr. Bon ham, and your excellency must be well aware that ever since my return to this country as minister plenipotentiary, the subject has been foremost amongst those of which I have hal occasion to advise your excellency the British Government looked for a satisfactory adjustment. I beg to refer you particularly to my communications of 25th April, 10th July, and 27th Dec., 1854, and of the 11th June, 1855. The tenour of your correspondence with Sir M. Seymour obliges me once more to remind you that the treaty right of British subjects to be admitted into Can ton has never been abandoned by the British Government. But this right is not at the present moment antler discus sion. The Admiral is simply insisting on certainty of access to the local authorities, and with good reason. Had the British consul been able to obtain such access on the day that the lorcha's flag was torn down, and her craw unlaw fully seized, the affair might have been settled in a single interview ; as it was, letter after letterhad to be addressed to your excellency; severa 'you allowed to remain for days without a reply, and to this hour you have neither apolo gised for the misconduct of your executive, nor have you given any sufficient assurance that henceforward our flag and jurisdiction shall be respected. Your Excellency's per tinacity in ignoring your obligations on these points has rendered necessary a series of coercive measures ; and it is to avoid the future necessity of a course as opposed to our interests as it is offensive to our feelings, that the ad miral has made to you thissimple proposition." This was the first communication, and made too upon the ex parte statement of Consul Parke-4 In reply to this, Commissioner Yeh wrote thus : "It was shown on trial of the prisoner that the lorcha was built by Seoachinz, a Chinese; a register was pur chased for herof the merchant Bloch, for LOY) dole., and she assumed the British flag without be in t entitled to it. She was lying at the time of the seizure off the Dutch Folly, and, as has been clearly proved, with no ensign flying ; it being as it appears an established law with British vessels to haul down their ensign when they drop anchor, and not to hoist it again until they get under weigh. Had it been shown on the trial that her flag was bona fide th,lt, of a Bri tish merchant vessel, it would have been doubtless correct to follow some other course than the one pursued, but the fact being that a Chinese had assumed the flag without title, what need was there for Mr. Consul Parkes to put himself forward as his advocate? Again thel2 men seized were all taken back by Hew, assistant magistrate at Nanhae on 22d ult., but Consul Parkes declined toreceive either them or a despatch sent with them from me. The letter under acknowledgment says that had the authorities been accessible to the consul the affair might have been disposed of in a sin gle interview. The assistant magistrate, Hew, was s ent twice with the men to bo surrendered. It is through him that (foreign) correspondence with me is always transmitted. Now the assistant magistrate is acom,missioned officer of the Chinese empire. Heretofore any foreign business that has had to be transacted by deputy has been transacted by officers similarly deputed, and the present was a case of all others requiring common conference; but Consul Parkes had made up his mind not to consent to what was proposed. On la subsequent occasion I sent Tecang, prefect of Lay chow-foo, to the foreign factories to consider what steps should be taken, but the consul now insisted on something more than (the rendition of) the men captured on board the lorcha. There being in all this no inaccessibility on the part of the Chinese officials, what was there to make an immediate adjustment of the dispute impracticable ?" Nor is it alone in the despatch of Sir J. Bowring that this language prevails. In Consul Parkes' letter of the lbth Oct. to Yeh this passage occurs : "At about 10 a.m. yesterday I received your Excel ' lency's ' Declaration,' which, I regretted to tee, evinced no desire on your Excellency's part to grant the satisfaction demanded in my letters of the Bth and 12th inst." And in his letter of the 21st of the same month to the same functionary we find the following : " But your Excellencylwith a strange disregard both of justice and treaty engagements, has offered no reparation or apology for this injury; and by retaining the men you have seized in your custody, signify your approval of this violation of the treaty, and leave her Majesty's Government without any assurance that such aggressions shall n ,t again occur. Your Excellency was warned by what took place on the evening of the 14th inst. of the dangerous consequences to which a refusal might lead ; but your Excellency treats with indifference that warning, and also the several pro tests made to you not only by me but by her Majesty's plenipotentiary." And with what spirit this discussion was carried on on our part your lordships may judge from the fact that when the Chinese authorities sent back the whole of the men taken on board the lorcha, the consul then raised the objection that the men were not sent back in the cus tody of a proper officer. Indeed the impression —and I say it with regret—left upon my mind by the careful pe rusal of these papers is this—that Sir J. Bo wring desired to make the most of the difficulty which had arisen with a view to the carrying out of his favourite scheme. And your lordships will see that the plan of operations was matured, as I may say, from the first. Consul Parkes, in his despatch of the 12th Oct., eight days only after the difficulty had first arisen, writ es thus : " I advise, therefore, and I do so with all the deference due to the superior judgment of your Excellency and the naval commander-in-chief, and with a deep sense of the re sponsibility which I, as the officer charged with the care of British interests at Canton, in offering this advice, incur, that as we have searched the river and found no war-junks (and anything less than the seizure of a fleet would, I am now convinced, have had no effect on the Imperial Coin missioner), our operations should now be directed against the forts between Whampoa and Canton. The Imperial Commissioner, I submit, should again be summoned to grant the satisfaction already demanded within twenty four hours, failing which we should then take possession of the four barrier forts. I cannot conceive it possible that, his Excellency will then withhold compliance with our de mands; but should he still continuo contumacious, a simi lar course should then be pu rsue d w ith t h e forts at Canton, and it would be exceedingly advisable, I think, that the re sidence of his Excellency, which is not far from the water side, should also in that case feel the effects of the boni bardmeut. But I consider it altogether indispeusable to the safety of our greatinterests at Canton, that prior to the commencement of these operations a force sufficient for the protection of the foreign factories should b e pl ace d in posi tion before them. I advocate attack on the Barrier Forts in the first instance, because they stand by themselves, and are not surrounded, as are those at Canton, by the dwel lings of the people, who should be exempted, whenever it is in our power to do so, from any disastrous conse quence accruing from the acts of their authorities, and will, it may be hoped, see the justice of offensive measures being aimed by us solely against the latter. And should wo be driven to the extremities I have hero anticipated, I then think that our proceedings would lose much of their effect if wo leave the forts in the condition in which we find them; but that one or more should, as far as possible, be destroyed, to mark by their ruins, for a time at least that aggression, when unprovoked and uu atoned, may be visited with signal retribution." Now, I will show your lordships that the old idea of Sir J. Bowring was mixed up with the business of repara tion fur the Arrow difficulty ; for we find in one of these despatches the following.— "f have conveyed. to Sir Michael Seymour an opinion that if his Excellency and yourself agree on the fitness of the opportunity, it would be well if tho vexata qucestio of our entrance into the city should now be settled." And we find elsewhere that Sir J. Bowring expresses his wiiliugness to go to Canton in order to the settle. ment of the matter. It appears, however, that the Chinese commissioner was not so easily to be deceived as to the real object of these demands for reparation, for we find him writing thus to Consul Parkes : " But I, the minister, also know full well what you, the said consul, have in view. (A. laugh.) For a certainty it is nothing less than a desire on your part to imitate the course taken by the Euvoy Davis in the spring of 1847." The shrewdness, indeed, which the commissioner showed in " smelling a rat" in this transaction appears not to have been without its effect on Sir J. Bo wring. It would seem, I am sorry to say, that the governor lost his temper, for in his reply to the despatch of Consul Parkes, which enclosed hies the couunisezener a commu nication, he wrote thus : "I have your despatch, dated yesterday, and regret to ob serve that the unabated obstinacy of the Imperial Commis sioner has necessitated the continuance of offensive opine lions. I notice in the declaration of his Excellency, dated the 26th inst., that a reference is made to the prooeteliugs of Sir J. Davis in 1341. You may find a proper opportunity of reminding the Imperial iolat ed, Commissioner e promisesthat a e instead gge. gsehamefaliy v into by the Chinese au th or iti es h a d bio2feeebnnetisn then entered faithfully and honourably kept, all the existing calamities would have been avoided." I will not weary and disgust your lordships by going through the various details of these miserable transac tions. On the 25th the Dutch Folly fort was taken ; on the 27th fire was opened on the residence of the com missioner and on the town ; on the 29th a practicable breach was effected, and the city was stormed. I should remark that a short time previous to this Sir J. Bu wring, acting in defiance of his standing instructions, sent to Hong Kong for troops, and obtained the miserable sup ply of 17 sappers and miners. This is a fitting opportu nity of recalling to your lordships' recollection a very proper letter, written by the noble earl opposite (Earl Grey), when he was at the head of the C lonial-office, and deepatelied, as the noble call himself stated, with the full concurrence of the Duke of Weilingten. That letter was addressel to Major-General D'Aguilar, and is as follows : " Colonial-office, Nov. 21, 1847. " Sir, —The Governor of Ceylon has communicated to me an application which you have made to the m a j or . general commanding her Majesty's troopsin that i s l an d 01 A rcuarconunt of half A company of artillery, vith " GREY." A. wiser or more statesman-like letter it is impossible to conceive ; and no one who is conversant with these transactions can read it without feeling that Sir John Bowring acted in opposition both to the letter and to the spirit of the instructions which he thus received. Now, my lords, I ask you to look at the condition of these people, and to say whether it would have been possible for them to present to persons at whose bands such injuries had been sustained by them petitions couched in more submissive and pathetic terms—psti tions appealing more strongly to the - best feelings of those to whom they were addressed? They say nothing about reparation for past injuries, or even about an interrup tion of intercourse. They say, in effect— "lf you will only stop your proceedings, we will renew our commercial intercourse with you on the ancient foot ing; we do not ask for redress for the blood of our slaugh tered relatives or for the injury done to our city; all we ask is that you will bs contented with the redress of the injury which you suppose yourselves to have received." Let us see what the Americans did in a similar case. In the cours e o f th ese proceedings an American vessel having approached near one of the forts was fired upon. The Americans went down the river and at tacked the fort which had fired. Having silenced it, they considered that they had taken sufficient reparation for the injury received, and they continued their trade upon the previous footing. Here was a real and substantial insult, there being no question as to the nationality of the vessel ; reparation is taken, and there is no further ill-feeling between the two nations. But look at the consequences of the opposite line of conduct on our own part. We proceeded from one step to another till we had reached a degree of severity which is seldom practised even in regular war, and we have created feel ings of opposition to us in Canton which it will take centuries to eradicate. Such is the impetuosity of Sir John Bowring, such is his determination to carry his ob ject, that he says— " If the imperial commissioner demands time to refer to Pekin for instructions, you are on no account to listen to lti co." Not only does he himself act without authority from home, but he will not allow the slightest communication to take place between the Chinese commissioner and the sovereign of the country in which these transactions oc cur. I have now very imperfectly laid before your lord ships the substance, and only the substance, of these disgusting particulars. I think, my lords, that a ques tion of this kind, a question involving such high and important interests, is not unworthy of the serious con sideration of the spiritual peers of this house. (Cheers.) To them, my lords, I would appeal as especially and em phatically men of peace; to them I would appeal as es pecially and emphatically servants of Him who came to bring " peace on earth and good-will among men." I would appeal to them as the legitimate rebukers of oppression and tyranny ; I would appeal to them as those who are by their position peculiarly qualified to enforce and inculcate the adoption of the high and holy maxim, that if it be possible we should, " as far as in us lies, live peaceably with all men." But, my lords, even if I should be disappointed in looking to that right rev. bench, I should still look with undiminished confidence to the he reditary peerage of England. (Cheers.) To them then I make my appeal. To those who have done me the honour of listening with exemplary patience to the long and painful statement which I have laid before them, would I appeal humbly and earnestly, but with confidence, to declare by their vote to-night that they will not sanction the usurpation by foreign authorities—the usurpation of that most awful prerogative of the Crown, the right to commence hostilities against another country ; that they will not tolerate, or by their silence appear to approve, a quarrel upon light and frivolous grounds, or in a case of doubtful justice, followed up by the capture of com mercial vessels ; that they will not tolerate the destruc tion of the forts of a friendly country ; that they will not tolerate the bombardment and shelling of an undefended commercial city; that they will not on any consideration give the sanction of their voice to the shedding of un warlike and innocent blood without warrant of law and without any moral justification. (Loud cheers.) The Earl of CLARENDON said—My Lords, I feel great difficulty in proceeding to reply to the long and powerful speech in which the talents and abilities of the noble earl have been displayed in so remarkable a man ner. In advocating the cause of Commissioner Yeh my noble friend has certainly neglected nothing that the most ingenious interpretation of documents, the boldest assertion of facts, the most touching appeals to your lord ships' sympathies, and the most commanding eloquence could effect for his client. I have, however, no less con• fidence than the noble earl has expressed in appealing to your lordships. I believe that your lordships will have regard to the facts as they appear in the papers, and not as they have been presented by the noble earl, and that, bearing in mind the great interests which are at stake, bearing in mind the expediency, the policy, and the necessity of upholding the servants of the Crown abroad when they are in the right, as in my conscience I believe those who are concerned have been on the recent oc- I, like the noble earl, entertain the fullest casion. confidence that your lordships wilt act to-night in your judicial capacity, and that, laying aside all party considerations, and looking solely to the facts before you, you will not condemn her Majesty's of- cers in China, or her Majesty's Government, with re gard to a course of conduct which they have most un avoidably, though most reluctantly, pursued. My lords, I cannot but regret the interruption of the relations be tween this country and China, but when the noble earl speaks of the past relations as amicable, I must say I cannot concur in that expression. (Hear.) When on the one side there has been for a long series of years a manifest determination to humiliate and degrade, and not to respect treaty rights, and when, on the other, there has been, in consequence, great exasperation and irritation, though tempered by a moderate and forbearing spirit, the rel Awns which have existed cannot correctly be termed amicable. There has, indeed, been for many years no resident in Canton, official or unofficial, belong• ing to any nation. It had long been felt that the pre sent state of things was unendurable, and that sooner or later a rupture must take place. A rupture has taken place ; and though it has been contended that we are to blame for what has occurred, persons who were on the spot, and who have watched the events as they occurred, and those who are the chief sufferers by these events, have expressed their approval of what has been done, and have admitted the necessity of the steps which have been taken. If these persons were present themselves, or were represented on this occasion, they would, I am convinced, ask your lordships not to agree to these re solutions ; for, whatever they may have invested in China, they feel that the safety of their lives and pro perty, and the prosperity of their trade, entirely depend on the maintenance of treaty rightg, and the protection of the Britidh flag. If those rights can be violated, or that flag insulted with impunity, there must be an end of all security for British residents in China. British mer- Chants will then carry on their transactions on mere suf ferance—a sufferance which may be withdrawn at any period—and will be dependent on the mercy and forbearance of the Chinese authorities, as indeed those authorities have constantly asserted that they are. (Hear, hear.) This case of the lorcha may be in itself a miserable case; but a principle is involved in it, a right was violated, and I say that her Majesty's officers at Canton could not, without a complete dereliction of duty, have acted other wise than they have done. Now with respect to the ordinance to which the noble earl has referred. Your lordships must be aware that the original purpose of this ordinance was to prevent abuses on the part of the Chinese authorities. The earliest notice which we have of the matter is from Sir John Bowring, who says that the question involved presented great difficulties, a vessel having no sooner obtained a register than she escaped colonial jurisdiction and car ried on trade in the waters of China, the object of the ordinance being, as far asjpossible, to provide such local guarantees as were compatible with the general regula tions made under the authority of Parliament. Sir John further explains that the necessity of a change was pressed on his attention, not only as Governor of Hong Kong, but also as chief superintendent of British trade in China, in consequence of the multi plied duties which had grown up, and the confusion pro duced through the discordant elements amidst which he had been directed by her Majesty's Government to observe a strict neutrality. He also alludes to the difficulty of deciding who ought to be deemed a British subject in a city a large portion of whose population is always shift ing. The ordinance was then issued for the purpose of restraining the abuse of the British flag which was by the imperial act. The ordinance would c er t a i n l y have contravened that act if it bad bestowed a British register ; but the only thing it did bestow was a colonial register, for trading between China and Hong K ong. My noble friend seems to think that this would not have Occurred in any other country than China. He is pro bably not aware that within the last 100 years there have been many cases precisely analogous to that of Hon g Kong at Gibral.ar and Malta. The Queen is empowered to grant these licences, giving a right to carry the Bri tish flag, and entitling to its p rotection not only British born subjects, but all resid en t s o f 15 year,. The case at Hong Konglis analogous, except that the right is given not to residents of 15 years, but to Chinamen lessees of Crown lands. Consequently, my krjs, I thiuk the ordi nance was perfectly legal, and under it the registrar had ITOPi% a perfect right t o con f er a register on the Arro w. The reasons the Attorney General for the colony gives for it are : " The colony of Hong Kong, with a Chinese population exceeding at th e present time 60,000, hardly c ontains ten Chinese who can legally be called British subjects, for i it has not been deemed advisable to naturali,e the Ch the here, and the recent settlement of the colony preve nts hrtb. The possibility of their having become subjects b y '' o pulation great proportion of the respectable part of this ia, population fui British have, however, constituted themselves bo a iseholds for long subjects, by becoming crown tenants of le . , ophtdei t" 414 9 1 years (a tenure of wluclA WA AIL O4 L i ' Au two guns and a proportionate supply of ammunition, to be held in readiness to be forwarded to Hong Song should t e • and by permanent settlement have . evinced the clearest in,. tension of perfecting themselves in the persons of their circumstances render it necessary to undertake any further descendants British subje cts secundem leges, as well as military operations at Canton. I have desired the Go- d e fa , cto. vernor of Ceylon not to send to Hong Kong the detach- I therefore, u je law adviser to the Crown, _ deemed it my duty to advice the granting of registers to such meat for which you have made application ; and I have Chinese as had, by becoming c rown tenants, so far as i e further to signify to you that her Majesty's Government them lay, made themses ranteed by other crown tenant ß s. r peremptorily forbid you to undertake any further offen- discharge of the obligations ye taken themcould upon be gas p subjects, ' and wh sive operations against the Chinese without their previous sanction. Her elaj -;sty's Government are satisfied that, lords, I of Gibraltar and Mal t a , although the late operations in the Canton river werets a , case d theis s tale strictly parneaclio:lovu the hteo samethat attended with immediate success, the risk of a second attempt of the same kind wou ld f ar over b a l ance any ad- las obtains in the British settlements, in the Straits of vantage to be derived from such a step. If the conduct of Malacca, at Singapore and Mazaban. A memorandum the Chinese authorities should, un f or t una t e ly, r e n der an- on the subject has been handed to me by the late Gover other appeal to arms inevitable, it will be necessary that nor of Singapore:— e" The condition of the BritisHhasneto.thzennts in the Straits o Singapore:-- it should be male after due preparation, and with the Kong, It will be use enjoyment of such an amount of force as may lo be,ard Malaya much resemble that of native. e ve it }:ay been expo grounds for expecting that the objects which may pro- ful, therefore, to see under what cAditio posed by such a measure will be effectually accomplished dient in these to grant registration to without unnecessary loss.—l have, &c., shipping The population of the three settlements amounts to 2 25,000, of which 90,000 are Chinese. I may confine my remarks, how ever, to Singapore, the most important of these settlements and which is not above five days' sail distant f rom H ong Kong : It contains a population of 70,000, of whom no fewer than 50,000 are Chines), some of these being British subjects by birth, as born under the British flag, but the great majority aliens, as born in China or the Dutch possessions in the Archipelago. Both British-born and alien Chinese are without distinction as to nationality—owners of coasting craft and of square-rigged vessels making distant voyages and • all sail under the British flag. I have before me the names of 12 square-rigged vessels owned by Chinese lying in the harbour of Singapore, ranging from 150 to 669 tons, seven of them exceeding 332 tons burden. The coasting Chinese and other native craftsail by registered passes, which run for a year only, and are renewable. These passes resem ble the certificates of registration of the Hong Kong ordi nance of 1855, on l y that the conditions on which they were granted were far less stringent." Bat, my lords, independent of all question of mercantile law and shipping acts, the real question at issue is, whe ther this vessel was understood to be a British vessel, entitled to the British flag, and to British protection, by the Chinese authorities. This is the question. This lorcha is one of the vessels described in the treaty as forming a part of the merchant shipping referred to in the 17th article.—[Earl of DERBY—That applies to Britisb.j—l contend she is a British vessel. A lorcha is designated as a ship belonging to a foreigner in contradistinction to a Chinese junk, and is always considered as a foreign built and rigged vessel. My lords, the question is whether this vessel was considered by the Chinese acitho rides to be a British vessel, well known as a British trader in the Canton river. All the proceedings that took place before she passed into the hands of her present owner have nothing to do with this. (Hear, hear.) She had been seized by pirates, retaken, adjudicated on, sold, and passed into the bands of a Chinaman ae crown lessee. A British register was granted to him according to the ordinance of Hong Song ; and the vessel was then ander that register and the British flag was flying. It is true that the year for which the register was granted had expired a few days before, but provision is made in advance for such an event, a., if the vessel was still at sea, it does nct expire until her return. She was then at sea, her blue-peter was up, and the English flag flying, and there is no doubt whatever that a deliberate insult was intended to the British vessel and the British flag. She was boarded by a Chinese force from a large and beavy armed vessel, 12 out of her 14 men were carried off, and to mark the animus of the Chinese authorities under whose instructions these men acted, the British flag was hauled down. My lords, there is no article of the treaty better known, or more constantly acted on, than the 19th, to which my noble friend has already alluded. It provides that if any criminal is supposed to be on board a British vessel, information should be at once given to the highest civil authority, in order that aJarcla and inquiry should be made. When the man was disco. vered, if he admitted his guilt, or it was proved, he should be given up. I know that the framers of the treaty attached the greatest importance to this . article, and de pended much on it for the maintenance of peace. In a po pulous country like China, where so many malefactors of various kinds might take refuge in our territories, it was of importance to have such a treaty of extradition, and nothing can be more plain than its provisions. In this case, my lords, not one of them was observed ; twelve men were violently carried off, although only the one was accused. I ask your lordships if any one of you had been in Mr. Consul Parkes' place could you have acted differently ? Very many unjust accusations have been made against him, and I think it only just to say that I am personally acquainted with him, and a more able, intelligent, and gentleman-Yike man I do not know. He has several times been placed in very difficult cir cumstances, in which he has acted with great judgment and good temper, and he has always shown himself deeply sensible of his responsibility. I ask you to put yourselves in his place, and say whether if he had shrunk from demanding satisfaction for this violation of our rights he would not have compromised the flag of Bog land, and exposed as to fresh insults in every port of China. We must remember there is a constant tendency to violate our rights and restrict our privileges, and if this had succeeded, it would have given a sort ef accu mulate sanction. (Hear, hear.) I say, my lords, that if this act had been left unnoticed, the crew allowed to be carried off, the master's protest to be disregarded, and the Consul's demand slighted, have you any doubt that it would have been claimed by the Chinese authorities as a new triumph over the white-laced devils and outside barbarians? (Rear, hear.) What did the Consul do He represented to the Imperial Commissioner that a violation of the treaty had been committed, and re• quested an apology. My lords, such a thing might have occurred between two of the greatest nations of the world. If you can dismiss from your minds the strong feelings in favour of the Chinese authorities which my noble friend must have excited, I think you would be inclined to take a very different view of such an occurrence. Suppose that a French or American vessel bad come to Liverpool, or to a port in the Channel Islands, with a register with which we were well ac quainted, and that any officer had sent an armed force and taken off four-fifths of the crew because one or two were sespected of some crime, and when the French or United States Consul had requested that these men should be restored under the provisions of a treaty of extradition, and an apology made for the insult to the flag, I ask what would your lordships think if any British authority had absolutely refused to restore the men or make an apology on the ground that from information subs°. quently received he was not satisfied that the vessel was a French or American one ? Would you not think that a man was mad, or worse than mad, who would expose Liverpool or Jersey to an attack, and this country to the • danger of a war with France or the United States on such grounds as these I ask if you would not be still more surprised if you heard that in the senate of the United States a resolution was afterwards proposed con demning in the strongest manner all the A rsterican offi cers engaged, and that a speech was made eulogising in the strongest terms the British authorities who had acted in such a manner I My lords, I know I may be told that this could not occur in a country in a high state of civilisation, where international law was respected ; bul., my lords, that these things have occurred in China is a -proof that there is not the same amount of civilisation or the same respect for international law. (Hear, bear.) However painful it may be to admit it, we must come to the conclusion that in dealing with the Chinese, if we intend to preserve any relations at all, we must make them sensible of the law of force, a 3 it is the only one to which an appeal can be made. My lords, if the consul had nct obtained any satisfaction from the Imperial Commissioner for this outrage upon a British vessel, the Chinese authorities would have treated every other British vessel the same way in order to deter those Chinamen who were in the habit of taking service with English owners, by showing them that the flag could not protect them from the most disa,trous consequences. My lords, the Imperial Commissioner was inconsistent with himself, for he did admit the force of the treaty by sending back some of the men he had taken ; but he did not do it in canformity with the treaty,' and he refused to make the apology demanded ; that apology was a just and reasonable one. We ought never to make any unreasonable demand on the Chinese but having once made a demand it is impossible to with draw it ; if we did so it would be attributed to fear—we would be considered cowards, and fresh insults heaped upon us. (Hear, hear.) It was manifest from the first moment a demand was ma le on the Chinese authorities that it Wfte absolutely necessary to insist on reparation. When the matterpassed into the hands of the admired, he seized a junk to let the Commissioner know that eve were in earnest, which he appeared inclined to doubt after the number of insults to which we had submitted. Even after measures of force had been resorted to, they might have been put a stop to at any moment by the Imperial Commissioner, but he was determined, as all the facts prove, to persevere in the course he had commenced. I next come, my lords, to the question of the entrance into Canton, which, however, has nothing to do with the matter immediately in dispute, and nothing would have been heard of it if the affair of the Arrow had been satisfactorily settled. My noble friend says that Sir John Bowring has a sort of monomania on this point ; I admit he does attach very great importance fmtykel Arrow it h wato it, but I feel certain that from the inst ruc ti ons he has wdobuleednntiesr have e received, he would not have taken any steps wit hout say, directions been heard f of i from home. f e I case factorily settled ; but it was manifest that a com munication with the au th or i t i es at Canton personal anton would be the best mode of coming to an understanding, Sir John Bowring an d Si r Michael S (Hear, h ear .) on their right to c l a i m the hulls f . 3ymour did not insist cri British subject s • ' they simply k minate a d m i ss i on o f them selves. So far from being an as ed for ad m i ss i on for parties were w e ll aware it would never be obtained unless the people of Canton _were made t o f eel our power. Sir J . Bowring and Si r M. Seymour wanted a parley, because it was evident that the corr espond ence contribute to increase would only going on the exasperation and irritation, an d a parley between the Britishand Chinese IB ersoffered the o c best chance of coming uestion - to an understanding. On theq of entrance to Canton I think there is some misapprehen sion 6 as to the feelings of the people on this point. My n ob le friend was most eloquent on the point, but Key la th v g, 1 ., e had of the wisest and most experienced ca n " i nsurmountable '''e to deal with, was of opinion there Iva' ;F. The feelings of difficulty in carrying out ourjust deman always easily ex the people were nothing but a b ugb e ar, d be easy in any Asiatic cited by their superior. It one the ignorant and town for the authorities 0 excite but that was no reason fana tical population against fore i gn ers, ves to b e insulted, and not make why, we should allow otit b rse e. j In 1845 Sir John Davies in a the authorities respons very strong opinion on this subject. despatch expressed entrance'l was refused on the pretext of the He states that le and declared that if he had the violence of the petoptfiler Majesty's Government he w ould . sanctio n and suppor t sure the fulfilment of that important in a short pen— i n condition.friend (theanswer th my noble l o f Aberdeen) at d espatch,authorise d Mr. T. Davis to sus pend thee vaeua tion of Ohusan until it s se ttl emen t. At that time the council of c Emperor that reported to the that the English had a decided right to enter Canton, and shit it was not of much importance. Sir T. G. Bonham s t a ted that he did not expect he could get entrance into the city, Amid suggested that it would be better to abandon the claim altogether. A middle course was suggested to him, and he was directed to remonstrate strongly with the Chinese commissioners on the non-fulfilment of this article of the treaty. He did so, and Seu and Yoh immediately declared all discussion, on the subject at an end, and re. ceiVed imperial honours for the triumph they had gained.