The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1857 the th row's register was in order and that the license was paid up, itis beyond doubt that the Hong Kong government leas no power to viohte the statute law of the country by ' The Hone Kent: legisleture can giving any sus m eew- se , . tint act contrary to our n avigation act, and the register was nothing but waste paeer, if it wa s all i n order. (flcar ) I see the noble lord at the heal of the Goveroment takine notes: (A laugh.) I' wish him to note - what I am now going to say, and to a cswer a retrark made by one of his col leagues in another plate. Lord Clarendon the other night used an argument which I think extremely fallacious. He said th e Hong Kong register could not give the imperial rights to the ship, but only the righte cf a slip in China — that they could only give pretection to a British ship . in China. That is the place in which we gay it cannot give protection. But s how could the Hong Kong ordinance, irrespective of any p.uthoritv from the impsriel rarliathent e have any force in China. 11. rd how could it contravene an act of the Imperial Legislature ? (Hear.) I leave, sir, to the lawyers in this house the legal part of the question. I venture to say that no lawyer having a reputation to care for (except sitting on the Treasury bench)—(a la tgb}—will easiest, contrary to the declarati: n of Lord Lyndhurst, that, our conduct was lawful. (Hear ) Assutnine, however, that The Chinese were strictly justified, it is said that they had . an intention to insult us. What are the grounds for that aupposition ? Let the house recollect the peculiar chat eater tf the trade carried on along the coast of Caine. It will to ..en that it, is not extraordinary that the Chinese should lave hoarded atvessel with British colons, oven if it had those colours, which the Chinese deny. Why in those very papers Sir J. Bowring mentions a casein which two English vessels were seized for having smuggled cargoes, and by the treaty the Chinese had a right to seize the cargoes but not the ships, whiCh were restersd. That shows that there are rises in which the Chinese have occasion to visit vessels with eEnglish flag flying, and that such an act does not necesa warily shove any disposition to insult cur flag. But I have had a statement on this subject from an American gentle. man— the United States marshal at Wbauapoa, who has recently arrived in this country. He told into of cases in which English ships bad been engaged in smuggling transac tions, and particularly mentioned one case, which, at my request; he put into writing, and which I will read as an illustration of what is going on near Canton :—" In the summer of 1855 there, were close to the English vice con- Relate frorcalo to 15 torches engaged' in smug g ling, S or 10 having the British colours hoisted during the day, and the cargoes being discharged at night. The Chinese authorities could not long be ignorant of so glaring a case ; end 12 mandarin boats, each containing 60 men, male their ap pearance early one morning and captured the whole fleet, five or six of them having the English colours flying at the time. The vessels were taken to Canton, when the parties having a right to fly the English flag claimed their vessels and had them restored, the others being retained by the Chinese Government. This ie. by no means an isolated in stance of the illegal use of the British flag, as you can see by referring to the Hong Kong papers, where you will fini plenty of cases in which the Chinese have questioned the right of the authorities at Hong Kong to grant the use of the English flag in such cases." (Freer, hear.) Now this gentleman is himself against the Chinese, and is willing tha tdhey should suffer any herrors—(l laugh)—but he said to mo " Yot have chosen the most unlucky ground for quarrel which you could possibly have taken, and you lave not a leg to stand upon." (Hear, hear:) I Ilea d with humi liation what this gentleman sail, as to smuggling vessels being allowed to use the British flag; end when 1 hear of the flag being insulted I say, it is these transactions which dishonour our flag.' ( gear, hear.) This American gentleman male me ashamed for my country when he said, "We do n , a allow such doings under our stars and stripes." (Hear.) Look at the position in which the Chinese authorities are placed by this system of ours in granting licenses to use our fleg.. A Chinese goes to Hong Kong, alit becomes a tenant of crown lands, or a partner with some one who is (nd the Chinese are very clever at their partnerships), and great friends to " limited liability ;" he then gets an .Lnglish-looking ship, and engages some man calling him itslf an Englishman for the nominal captain. Any one who wears a round hat and European coat will do. (A lough.) He is called the captain, hat the real captain is a Chin:linen ; the owner is a Chinese, the crew are Chinese ; the pretendel captain is a " loose fish—(a laugh)—a run aa ay epprau tire, or a vagrant sailor ; he i 3 allowed plenty of rum, and has nothing to do but drink; and mid r cover of this pretence the vessel is allowed to carry an English flag. Such a system it is most disgraceful to U 3 to sanc tion. (Eeer.) And one of the good abets I hope to secure By a select committee is, the devising of means to put an eed to this system. (Hear.) The advantages acquired by mean's of the license are mach greater facilities in smug gling, and protection in east of seizure, foe ifthe vessel has :I.hr:epee - the cargo way be eeizeid, bat net the ship. The eeistthice of such a system is the best riksen to show that it cannot be assumed that it was inter:dad by the Chinese to insult US, merely because they seized a vessel with the iiritish colours flying, becalm they have constantly occa sion so to'go. But look pt the - cerresporelence, and recoi led., who'are the parties'who were - coiresponding. Mr. Con sul Parkes (3 clerk the other dty)—a. young man who one (iv fray -here discretion— (a laugh) - - and Governor Yeh, ice,roy Ore tiroviece containing ':0,093,000 of inhabitants, Considering the character of the correspon lence on the one side and the other e it is impossible to see the slightest trace of any intention on the part of the Chinese authorities to insult us—and, on the contrary, there is on their side cour tesy and forbearance, and on our side arrogance end pre sumption. (Hear.) But look at the circumstances of the ,corrospOndence, and remember the dates, without obier eaug which jtai force wi I be lost. Thus, on Neva 12 Geyer etor Yeh writes, after Canton 113,1 been bombarded, and his own license destroyed and ravaged- he writes a letter, disclaiming all ineention to insult, in these terms The 12 men seized were all taken back by the assistant corn fuiesioner on the 221 October, but Consul Parkes then vlealined to receive them, or the despatch sent with them. lie says that the - Chitiese authorities were ,` not accessible. The assistant commissioner who was aunt with the men is an officer commissioned by the Chinese Emperor, and it is through Lim that the foreign correspondence with me has always teen conducted." But Consul Pariceslad made up Ills mind not t assent to whet was pr. - Alosed." (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") On a sub sequent occaaiqn he insisted on something inure than the ?Aura of the men. There bsiug no inaccessibility on the part of the Ciiinese authorities,whet ma le an immediate ad j tietinent impossible? - Yet on the 23d, 21th, aid 25th, the eitforent forts of the city were destroyed, an I froth the 27th Oetober to the 15th Nov., a cannonade W 33 kept up, by which numbers of dwelling -houses were consunsed arm In eat loss of life occasioned. Now, considering the terms of that letter, and the circ - umstamei model. n Lich it was written, it is a proof that the writer had uo desire to pro voke, but toamaciliate those to whota it was ach!ros.e.l. ('lean) It is very striking how, through the whole con es poedeuca, Gower:air Yeh constantly harps on this—that the Jurche was nut a British vestal. (Cle;if, hear.) There are eight lettesa at least in which that is reiterated. (llean) iiis language up' n that point is SO terse, clear, and logical, thatit t ei g ht have beets used by Lord Lyralhurst—, " The whole question amounts to this, that a lorcha built by Chinese purchases a British fl vg—thaa, does not make her n British vessel. (Load cries Of " Hear, leer.") All Westminster Hall could not put the case mote cleor'y. And what is so remarkable is this„ that. throughotit the corres pondence the J riti h authorities neverrefer to er refute this simple point. (i - lear.) And though wo may have In and the' Lord Chancellor 'talking of - everything elleetent that, and t hough we may heir theattot.ney General ore long talk of . everything elso—(s h-.ugh) —we shall not find any lawyer with a charaeter to less, or who aspires to the seat of the Chancellor—te Igegh) -who will venture to declare in: explisit language.' that the prieciple leal down by' Governor Yeh is wrotig. (Hear, hear.) He writes in . another letter thus : I have always understood that a foreign, flag is peculiak to a particular 'nation;' and thoretore caunot sea how a foreign naqen can sell its flee to Chinese.., (Hear, - hear.) 1 am not aware foreeige nations have such a law." (Haar, hear ) "Ha 1 the ling belie fide belonged to a British merchant vessel it would have been proper to follow another course ; but the Chinese having fraudulently assumed the flag, ashy should Consul Parkes put himself forward 48 their advo cate ?" (Linehter, sail loud cries. of "Hear, hear.") " Because lee wanted a pretext to make war !" (Loud cries of " Hear hear" from all parts of the house.) Sir (said the hon. emeaber emphatically), I declare on my honour that I believe it was so ! (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") I believe sincerely that there was a preconceived desi g n to . pick requarrel with the Chinese, and that there has been mare encouragement given to that design than the braise r,r,, at ail aware of. (Hear.) There was nothing in the boafeling of the Arrow ten ling to chow that the Chinese meditated en insult to the British flag. Et ery one ofthese letters displayed a temper and forbearance and desire to conciliate, such as ought to put the assailants of the Chinese to the blush. tut Lox d Clarendon did not content himself with this transaction. Ile said that for a lon.' time the Chinese antholitiei had beeriencroaching on the rights of foreigners, ant evin c i ng a d es i re to encroach ou treaty _ rights. If tech, lila been the case it was the duty of our Otswerntnent to have tairen earlier st- 3 On the contrary, however, we had drlted on t o a quarrel, whiclie hart no ground to stand on at all. • (['leer.) If what Lordraudc on had stated was tr ue , w h y, i u the name of .a . sense, bad not he or Lord Pal mers t on applied totohmeT4oon vernmants of America and Fran ce l ong ago, say i ng, " We . are p:.rtoes to the treaty, and let us all join in a joint ex postulation to Pekin?" Illeas. , ) It was uns t a t eemanlike not to have redressed those grievances at the proper time. TU - premoto - this dirty quarrel was an act upon which all be world ought to cry shame. Ho denied, however, that what Lord Clarendon had stated was true. It appeared in the papers that since 1842 there wore still most striking preofs that the authorities of China had manifested a sin cere and Consistent desire to carry out the treaty. •Why, he asked, was this correspon lence produced only on the very morning of the day that the Earl of Derby was about to bring on his motion? The correspondence was carrica tured by the nick-nude of "Correspondence relating to In sults in China; (Laughter) That correrpondence was laid on the table in Order to mystify. It contained no less than 215 and oddinsults to the British flag--an amount of reading net suited to lion. gentlemen less voracious upon bluebooks than himself, and on which a Olin country gen tleman might well cry out "Mercy on na l" The extracts iu this c orrespondence ivere garbled. They' ranged during street time 131- to 1816' p a a P l e lyt of 9 and referred princi dentalla of (i rows. A case in which a boy had been acci ene 0r,200 and the British consul had awarded a flag. (Aal.augh.) - N . vatput down as an insult to the British record of complainer ~virile all this stress was laid on this irgs, what-had been al; grave disputes and misunderstand- Let hon, reeMbsre tugrertril on . in other parts of the world ? place elsea - here. attention to what had taken • theconntry had three times jeo pardised ate relatioe s wit line, to United States relating to a boundary on questions beenp d lead. Twice in rho fleet had been got in realins es ~.t a lk; r ics, and enlistment. A House of Commons had there debat es with the object e e i peeeibility of a .sghaoirea,stenWr or i ti a v d 'within that of increasingeur forces to provia o f or descent of the French on our time called out the militia. A aimirope had b ie n in a state of rev a empires had been - engiged in a most bloody and costly war with Russia. _Froui 1842 to ISA lutiOn:During troubles in France English workmen°- hem banished to this country. If such things lis r p,„ ul d be tween nations possessing the same habits if not the sam e language, might we not have h ad a little more t oleration for thee - Chinese ? Was is it not an insult to their comm on understanding to bring down such a blue book as this for the purpose of making out a case for Lori Clarend on ? not fairly given, The ext rac t s were as would appear f r o m other extracts he had in his possession from the original pipers. For instance, Major-General D'Aguilar, in a letter dated front Ilong-Kon7e, in Feb., 1 817, and enclosed to Lord Palme rs t on b y Sir J. Davis, said that he load been a great deal amongst the Chines:), and had been treated with courtesy and civility—that everything d e p e nded on the English, and that a ki n d manner towards the Chinese was the best security against insult. (Hear.) He (Ifr. Cob d,n) had sometimes been accused of being hostile to the army and navy. He had friends in both services, and had C , )IUO to the conclusion that the bast friend of eace was the veteran soldier. (Hear.) In 1816 Sir J. Davis, wri ting-to the governor, said that on a cert a i n Monday 'beliedl been walking for sixhoure about every p ar t o f Hong Kong; that he had been treated with the greatest civility ; that he had passed through thestreets with as much convenience as-if he had been in London, and he felt convinced that in , any disagreement the Chinese would not be found to bathe aggressors. (Hear.) Our 'countrymen first adopted a bodying tone, and trusted too much to protection after wards. The best 'protection, Sir J. Davis said, fey Eng lish merchants was to be found in their own circumspect conduct, and by avoiiiing, rather than seeking, causes of I offence. (Hear.) Now that letter was not to be found in the blue books. Sir J. Davis,' in another letter to Lord' Palmerston, declared that the . representatives of other countries got better on with the Chinese, and clamoured less for protection then our own. (Hear.) Lord Clarendon was a great apologist for the English merchants. Now no body would doubt his (Mr. Cobden's) mercantile sympa thies. His life had been devoted to the enlargement cf the honourable end beneficent career of the mercantile ; Ingle. (Hear, freer,) Sir George Bonham, in alluding to the English neerehrants in China in 1847, Pahl that some of I the younger (men -earn in favour of Freaking down the bar riers which kept us from the interior, but that the older merchants were opposed to such violence. ' No doubt Eng lish merchants were in a species of duresse owing to the confined area to which, for the purpose of recreation end health-seeking, the Chinese laws limited them. He (Mr. Cobden) might desire to emancipate them from that duress°. but ho felt assured that violence would only tend indefinitely to retard the accomplishment of that which was desired. (Hear, hear.) It was notorious that a great many of our countrymen were engaged in a traffic of an exceptional kind-ea tjaffic hurtful to the souls as well as the bodies of mankind. (Hear, hear.) That trade flourish ed under a certain degree of license and 'of lawlessness. With these parties he had no sympathy whatever, and he I feared they merited the reflections of the gallant officer to whose letters he had referred. He did not think it was to the benefit of English merchants that they shoisld he en abled at all times to summon an overwhelming force to their assistance, and compel the Chinese to accede to their demands. Without desiring at all to revive a certain byegone discussion, his belief was that there might be too much protection to British industry. A laugh.) Whist our exports were declining they were more and more passing through the hands of foreigners, instead of Englishmen. (Mae, hear, hear.) If we went to the Mediterranean, the Levant, and to the ancient seats of commercial activity, it would be seen that the English merchants, with all their probity, were a declining body. The trade of Smyrna and of Constantinople was passing from the hands of Englishmen to Swedes, Greeks, seal Germans, belonging to countries who had no power to pro tect them at all. (Hear.) It, might be that it was the haughty demeanour of Englishmen which compromised them with the natives of other countries. It was all very well for Lord Palmerston to inscribe on our passports the words Civis, Romanus suns. That motto might prove a guard to our footsteps ; but "Civis Romanum sum," was not a very conciliatory motto to place on the doors of our counting-houses abroad. (Hear and a laugh.) The East India and Chime Association of Liverpool had put forwent a very modest request in connection with our trale at Chinn These modest gentlemen considered the present disruption of our tea lo with China as a proper opportunity fur insisting on a revision of the Customs duties ; and they recommenied an ad Valorem, lay of 5 per cent on imports and exports. That was a tariff which he (Mr. Cobden) should like to see applied to England (a laugh) and he would advise hiS friends in Liverpool thus to apply it as soon as they could. ([Tear, and heighten) The associa tion Maintained that the British Government ought to in sist upon the opening up of British trade in China, that new ports should be opened, with consuls to be placed at them, and that we should have access to all tho ports and rivers of China. (Laughter.) Suppose such a me morial had been a ldreseed from Moscow to the Govern ment of Turkey. (Hear, hear.) Could anything have been' more " stunning" to -the Liverpool Association than such an ukase? (Hear, and a laugh.) Such lan guage, ho held, deserved reprobation. (Hear.) Contrasted with the tone of the extracts he bad previously road, it was the lauguago of downright selfish violence. (Hear ) It was unreasoning injustice thus to treat a great empire of 30,000,090 of people. But what advantages did these gentlemen seek ? He only wished that France and Prussia offered ua as low a tariff as China, There was not a coun try where trade was carried on with greater facility—no country where ships could sooner load or unload, and get fresh cargoes. Mr. Cooke had told him, as that gentleman had described in his evidence, that he seen a ship of 1500 tons burden come into Whampoe, which had discharged her cargo and taken in a cargo of tea in five der. Could such expedition be attained in Liverpool? (Hear.) The use of force, in order to open more ports in China, had failed in 1812. in the autumn of which year S r R. Peel had ober rved that the fine harvest of that year and the news of the Chinese treaty had saved this "country from fearful suffer ine and disaster. Depend on it that hostilities with China, and the proposal to admit oar vessels to all the rivers of 'China, would valet tend to diminish than in crease our trade in .that country. (Hear.) With regard to the claim of foreigners .to be admitted to Canton, he was of opinion, that when the treaty was signed it was contem plated that they should have as free admission there as to Loo-Choo-Foo or'Shanghae ; but there La 1 been contro versies between our authorities and., the authorities of China on the subject. In the correspondence at, the end of these papers. was a despatch from Lord Palmerston in which he odered the very best possible grounds why the British merchants should not persevere to obtain admis sion to Canton. It appeared that the population of Canton and of the province in which it was situated were a fierce and ungovernable race who entertained hostile feelings to wards the English. Whetherl that character was owing to their past communication cnith the East India Company, or to their southern climate, he could not say, but he be lieved that bothour plenipotentiaries and Lord Palmerston in 1847, 1848, and 1819, had urged this feeling of hostility as a reason why the British merchants should not be admit ted to Canton. L3t it be remembered here, that it is not the admission of merchants into Canton which my friend Sir J. Bowring (who, us Lord Derby says, is monornoniac on this subject) makes a sine qua non, but the admission of fo reigners. The hon. member criticised a letter of the hon. member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) which appeared in the correspondence, having reference to. Chinese importabA rig paid for in opium. Ho could not understand what Sir John Bowring was fighting for ? Wits it to g,t into Canton? Why the g ove rnor h a d un d er t a k en to meet him ut the packing house of the greet tea merchant Howqua, ant surely that might have sufficed for him. Ito went further, and thought that the 'English residents were fighting for a chimera if they considered it of any use to get into Canton. Why. Englishmen could never live in such a place as Canton, no more than they lived in the Turkish quarters of Constantinople. Whet was really wanted by the Enlish residents was free access to the interior of the country around Canton ; but he appre hended what the Chinese authorities said of the people iu the neighbourhood was true, namely—that they were fero cious and unruly, and that Englishmen would not be likely to receive fair treatment from them. Now here was a short address from the inhabitants of Canton on the subject of our recent proceedings. They said i-- " The late affair of the lorcha, was a trifle; it was no case for deep-seated animosity, as a great offence that that could not be forgotten ; yet you have suddenly taken -op arms, an :for several days you have been firing shell, until you have burn- d dwellings and destroyed people in untold nurnb?re. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be told haw many old people, infants, and females have left their homed in affliction. (Hear.) If your countrymen have not seen this they have surely heard, have they not, that such is the case ? What offence has been committed by the people of Crnton that such a calamity should befall them ? nigaln, it has came to our knowledge that you are insisting on official receptions within the city. This is doubtless with a view to amicable relations, but, when your only procee4ing is to open a fire upon us which destroys the Teeple, supposing that you were to obtain admission into the city, still the sons, brothers, and kindred of th e p eo pl e whom you h a v e b urne d ou t an d killed will be ready to lay down their lives to be avenged on your countrymen, nor will the authorities be able to prevent them." Mean) He thought there was great good sense in that appeal. Again, Commissioner Yeh, in a letter which might have been penned by, the late Duke of Wellington, it was so sententious, thus spoke of the inhabitants of Canton-- "They are very fierce and violent." And, again, in an other communication, in answer to an application for an interview with our plenipotentiary, he writes, "I cannot even go out of my house, I am so besieged by the peer wretches upon whom you are inflicting such misery." It was.most desirable that Englishmen should address them selves to this consideration—were the authorities of China in good faith when they declared that they could not, with convenience to themselves, carry out that plausible treaty which 'gave the merchant and traders of this country a right of entry into Canton. The papers before the house were full of proofs to the contrary. Thera was a clear misap prehension that becau,e the treaty had not been carried out the rights_of Englishmen had been violated. Now, ho be lieved that even if the treaty could be enforced, it would not be of the slightest use. It was outside the walls of the town, in the district lying between the water's edge and the town," that our merchants, - servants, aid brokers re sided, and so if Englishmen had access to Canton it would be outside the walls they would still continuo to do their business. There was, therefore, no real grievance in Canton not being open to Englishmen. But supposing that every thing which he had said could be contradicted, ho would ask, was it right that with a country with which England had treaties and alliances—was it right that our represen tative should be allowed to carry on war without lustruc• tions from his Government ? (Cheers.) That, however, was a point on which he did not intend to touch, as there were many gentlemen present who would deal with it much better than he could. He maintained that Sir John Bowring, had acted not only contrary - 0 the express in strnctione sent out to him, -but he hid violated all sound principle s of international law. He had sent up s loo men from Hong Kong to Canton in the teeth of the express in junction sent out to him from England that the troops were not to be moved without direct orders from England. The letters of Lord Malmesbury, Lord Granville and Lord Grey were p er f ec tl y i ntelligible, one and all ivin'f , erem epy w oep i ra th eh o n e u e e t p e hbr between te v wi i v n ee g edn r a e s o gi o rr u e Ja r s t. e change g gi n l a nt and d Lord Clarendon as compar e d w ith what it was e . tory orders that Si r J . B owr i ng must not g enter' p upon ag gressivep- measur es t o ff n e e m o n f s t t the say,e e h r o r o w e r w i ith a the Ministers that preceded the noble lord in office. It to him that the moment Lord Clarend on came into office the check that had hitherto been upheld over our Pleni potentiary in China was withdrawn; in fact, from that moment we were drifting into a war with China, p rec i se l y as we did with Russia. When they looked at the specific directions of Lord Malmesbury and .Lord Granvill e , and compared them with the correspondence afterwards, he could not help thinking that something must have passed in the interval which induced our Plenipotentiary to be lieve that oven if he did get the country into a m ess w i t h China the news would not be unfavourably received at home. (Hear, hear.) He gathered that the general im preasion abroad was, that after what had been done by England, the merchants would in a body desert Canton never to return to it. Ent surely cur object ought not to be to destroy our own commerce. The fact was, the Go vernment had entered into a war which could not be de fended, and so all the world would think. And did they suppose for a moment that France or America would take the quarrel up on the miserable ground of the dispute about the Arrow. He believed, at all events, that America would not. For France he could not speak, knowing no thing about her Government. Ent might not this war if It continue, lead to other complications with foreign powers?— might it not lead, for example, to complications with Ame r i ca , w hi ch be it remembered, was only half the distance from China that England e was? Indeed, he might mention th at already the house f Russell, of Canton, had protested that they would hold the English Government r w e a s r p o h n a s v i i b r l k t 3, ben th e fur damage inflicted on them by reasoniof carried on w ith ou t not i ce : Well, b ut what did they pro posetodo more especially th e ? Hes aw th a t th e I n di an press, great advocate for annexatiorie n d n, India, which was always a called upon Sir John Bow ring to play the part of a Clive (ironical cheers), and enter did they annexationstil in upon a caner of congr e t ncl China as had Here n w America would been done in India. :10c07000iescemoinpetolitale,aarnrs,dohgoewnsednitd?they prepe a s s e a t n e empire of would be to He thought their wisest course, as a first step,govern it? undo what' had been already done. If they repudi.tted the acts of their plenipotentiary, as having acted without A mer i c a in a joi n t representation to be, a ithority, they would then be free to unit e with F ra nce and permitted internal intercourse with China. He hoped they should not be told there, as had been said in another place by Lord Clarend )n, that the Chinese were a barbar ous people, end that, therefore, force must be exercised over them. (Ironical cries of "Hear, hear.") Now, ho would tell them that it would b 3 next to impossible to govern the Chinese by force—(hear)—and they would be disappointed if they tried to do so. Brit were the Chinese, after all, so barbarous a people? Here was an empire which at one time was the sole representative of civilisa tion in the world—which, 2,700 years ago, had a system of primary instruction in logic before the time of Aristotle, end in morals before Socrates. As was well known, it was the Chinese who supplied the Romans with silks and other articles 2,000 years ego. They were the most populous nation in the world, and the most industrious nation in the East; in fact, they might be termed the ants of industry in the East. There must, therefore, bo something worthy of respect in such a people ; and if Englishmen spoke of them as barbarian's, and threatened them with force be cause they were not accessible to reason, it must be rather because their ways were not our ways. (Hear, hear.) Now, were not a people like this deserving of sympathy, if not of justice, at the howls of the Briti s h nation'? He would commend the question to the House of Commons, and he felt confident it would do justice to it. (Cheers.) The resolutions having been put, Mr. LABOUCHERE said he was very far from regret. ing that the subject had been submitted to their attention by the hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat. He thought that there Was not a member present, whatever might be his opinions as to the transactions in dispute, who would not agree in thinking that it would be unbecoming they should take place without receiving the deliberate con sideration of the House of Commons; for those transactions must deeply concerned important commercial interests of the country, but they affected sill more deeply the repu tation and credit of the British empire. He was persuad ed that when the question was fairly and impartially considered the house would bo of opinion that, however much a warfare of this description between parties so un equal was to be regretted, that no blame on account of it could attach to the local authorities entrusted with the charge of British interests, and that no other course was open to the Government at home, without a betrayal of the charge committed to them, and lowering the British cha racter all over the world, than that which had been fol lowed. One thing must have struck all hon. gentlemen who had carefully examined the papers before the house— viz., that these things were not done in a corner, but that they were done in the face of a gre European community —in the face of a groat community of English merchants. Now that was the language in which the hon. gentleman thought fit to stigmatise that great and respectable body ? Mr. COBDEN.—I beg the right hon g entleman's par don. Will he specify what I really said ? (He sr, hear.) Mr. L A BOUCHERE.—Yes ; he would specify what the hon. gentleman had said. The hon. gentleman said that he believed the judgment of the entire mercantile community at Canton was warped and vitiated, that they had been moved entirely by their own selfish interests, and that they were blind to all considerations of humanity and jus tice. (Loud cries of "hear; hear," on the ministeral benches.) Now he (Mr. Labouchere) ha I a very different opinion of English merchants in every quarter of the world, no matter where they were found. He bed never himself been personally engaged in commerce, but the honour of the British merchant was dear to him from many associ Cons. His family and connections Ivid all been engaged in trade, and had formed a different estimate of the character of the British merchant from that drawn by his hon. friend. His hon. friend had drawn a very unfavourable contrast between the conduct of our representatives and the con duct of the Chinese authorities at Canton. Now, did it not strike the house as something very extraordinary that, notwithstanding all that had been said, the sym pathies of the French and American residents ha I been throughout with the English authorities ? The Ameri can consul, indeed, had evinced that sympathy to such an extent that he joined our troops in their approaoh to Canton. lint he held in his hand the testimony of a person still higher than the American consul—he meant the testi mony of the chief superintendent of American trade, resi dent at Macao, and ho would call the attention of the house to the document the more pointedly as it did net arrive in this country in time to be presented to Parliament with the papers previously delivered. Nothing . co lSosf u 6 elea ,thhinenb and letter, mwhich w o a r s e d o a u t t e s d po m k s e c n a , o, th th an e 2 t 7 h t e h l o a f ne ec a the American Legation. It was as follows— " Legation of the United States, Macao, Dec. 27, 1856. "To the Merchants and other Citizens of the United States. " His Excellency Peter Parker, Commissioner of the United States of America to China, &e., referring to the notice of the i 9th inst., hereby makes known the reply of the Imperial commissioner to his excellency's despatch of that date was ie eeived last evening, and that, with the semblance of a desire to maintain friendly relations between the two countries, the same disposition to evade obligation, misrepresent facts, and erroneously interpret treaty sti,mlations, which for years has characterised the correspondence of Imperial commissioners still obtains with his Excellency Yeh. The resumption of trade to any extent at the port of Canton, during the exist ence of the local authorities, is not encouraged by the tenour of the communication now received, and means more ample than those now at command will be required to meet the emergency of the public interests of the United States in China, and,the satisfActory and proper adjustment of the re lation of the five ports is an event yet future. _ By order. " S. WELLS WILLIAMS, " Secretary of the United States American Legation." Ho imagined that docnment was of the more import ance because it was issued subsequently to the difficulties between America and China having been solved. It was, indeed, a document which might have been put forth by Sir J. Bowring instead of Mr. Parker; but he hoped, as it proceeded from an. American instead of a British com missioner, it would be entitled. to some respect and attention. (bear.) lie believed the fact to be that the relations between the Canton atithorities and all the Eu ropean Governments had become, perfectly intolerable. He could not regret, theref..ra, that a crisis had arrived which had been long anticipated. It was one thing to hold amic able relations with a Government which knew how to re gulate any differences that might arise in a just spirit— it was another to be placed in contact with a Government that had no respect for obligations of treaties, and who availed themselves of every opportunity to outrage the rights of Europeans. (Hear, hear.) He must say that the resolutions of the hon. gentleman were the most obscure and ambiguous ever presented to Parliament. They were framed to catch as many votes as possible, but he did not fairly raise the question at issue. Why, the hon. gentleman called upon them most illogically to come to the conclusion that the recent • measures adopted against the Chinme were violent and unjust, without taking into consideration the grounds of complaint which the English Government hail against the Chinese authorities. The propositions of the hon. member for the west riding e vinced the most illogical mode of reasoning he had ever heard in that house. He could not understand how the hon. gentleman could ask the house to agree to such incon sistent and incongruous propositions. Aed to wind up all, the hon. gentleman asked for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into our commercial relations with Chine. Why, that was a separate scatter altogether. He (Hr. Labouchere) did not know whether the hon. member for Midhurst (Hr. Warren) was in his place. Now, that lion. gentleman made the other night one of the shortest, hut certainly not one of the worst speeches that had ever been uttered in that house, when be said, " Just fancy the British constitution being referred to a select committee." Now he (alr. L.) said it would be scarcely less extraordinary to imagine that the foreign relations of this country were referred to a select committee. Why, that was a matter for the house itself to determine. If they thought that the Government were wrong in approving. of the conduct of their officials, why lot them frankly and manfully say so. The Government could then understand their verdict and would bow to it ; but let them net assent to such unintel ligible propositions as had just been submitted to them. Although he did not profess to be a lawyer. he neverthe less did not think that it required any special legal know ledge to consider and to understand this question. Much had been said as to the character of the lorcha. Now, there were two classes of British registered vessels which wera quite distinct, and which ought not to be confounded together, although each of them ha I a right to carry the British flag. Thera was first that class of vessels which were fully untitled to registry, and to obtain all the rights of British vessels without the intervention of a special au thority. There was, however, another class of vessels which, from the necessities of trade and of pecnlar circutn stances, were entitled to a colonial and partial registry, which was only available w'ehin special limits. Many hon, member; were, no doubt, aware of that which was called the Mediterranean class—a class which existed fur upwards of 200 years. Ships of that class need nit be British built nor British manned, nor even bo British owned, an .I yet be entitled to celery the British flag and to enjoy British protection. Those were ships that were sail ing from Gibraltar, Malta, or other places in the Mediter renews. He had before him a case of a Gibraltar vessel, in which the con lition of British ownership was dispensed with in 1823, and an or ler in council was issued conferring the right upon her to carry the British flag and to claim British protection. Yet she was not manned by English men, nor, indeed, by any British subject. It was consi dered enough that the owner should have had, while on skore, a fixed place of abode at Gibraltar for m. during the term of 15 years up to the time of granting or of the issuing of such licence. Now that privilege was given by the pre. r'gative of the Crown---s prerogative which had been ex orcised at all times by in order in council in the case of a conquered or legal cession. It was under this latter form that a licence was given to Hong Kong, now a ceded colony of the British Crown. It was only new that any doubt was started as to whether the ordinance in the present case was le s sal. lie believed it was clear that when this lorcha lay in the Bay of Canton the Chinese knew that they were doing an illegal act by boarding her. They had English as well as Chinese evidence'to that effect. If even the Chinese authorities were ignorant of the real state of the case, in stead of boarding the Arrow and violently hauling down her flag, they should have remonstrated against what they might have considered was an abuse of the British flags He could not agree with the hen. member for the west r in i d a i n r g when he a u deandin tct crateth at the m Br a nue i r t , i s o h o r thatffi officials als they htea , i behaved shown any wish to pick a quarrel with the Chinese authorities. He (Mr. L.) was not acquainted with Consul Parkes, but he was bou n d to Fay that every parson who had had an n r o e p p p , o , r r t t e n d n h i t i y m o t f j b u e d a g i n g a n o f his the last per son w h o wou ld be at all likely to behave in a of goodcharacter g a o l l o d d c t o e n m d p u e e r t , h anda had rude or intemperate manner. A remonstrance had been made to the Chinese authorities after the first outrage upon the lorcha, and an interval of several days was allowed to pass without any movement by the British authorities. No satisfaction having been given during this time Sir J. Bowring wrote a most temperate letter while making de mands for reparation. At length hostile measures wore resorted to by Admiral Seymour, who conducted them in a manner worthy of his character. Much bad been said about the cruelty of the bombardment of Canton. Now, up to the present hour, the city of Canton had never been bomba.ded ; but, undoubted y, hostile measures were re luctantly resorted to, which were as much as possible con fined within the limits of principles of humanity. The right of entry into the city of Canton, though for a time in abeyance, had never been abandoned by the British Govern ment. He (Mr. L.) could net at all agree with those who said it was an improper time for Sir J. Bowring to take a step for the enforcement of that right. Sir John Bowring was not the man to resort to any harsh proceedings unless they had become absolutely necessary. He (Mr. L.) now came to a most important point of the hon. gentle man's speech. He said that Sir John Bowring hid acted in violation of the express and positive directions given him by Lord Grey when the noble lord was in office. Sir John Bowring was liable to no such imputation. The instructions given could not be held to have anything like a universal application. Was it intended that under no circumstances should Sir John Bowling iesort to hostile measures ; that he should never do more than defend him self..? Why, if our unfortunate commissioner had any such instructions given to him, and if they became known to the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, no man would be left in a more hopeless and deplorable condition than he would be. (Hear, hear.) How could such a moaning as this be given to the instructions sent to a dependency four months' mi. from this country ! But it was said, what a shocking thin - _! to giro a British consul in Hong Kong the power of in volving England in a war with China. Ile (51r. L.) con tended that they were not at war with China, and he hoped that they would never bo at war with Chins. He held in his hand an opinion of one of the greatest lawyers that had ever adorned this or any other country—the late Lord • Stowell. . That great authority, when speaking on the law of nations, said, " A commander going to a distant station may reasonably be supposed to carry with him such a por tion of authority delegated to him as is necessary to provide for the exigencies of the service in which he in employed. In a station where Eaglan'i may b 3 said to be close at hand to superintend nod direct the course of operations under a ournme.nder's control, the case may be very different. But in respect to distant parts of the world, this power cannot be disputed." Now, he (Ur. L.) thought that that settled the question. Sir J. Bowing possessed that right, and the case was one which fully Justified him iu resorting to it. Even according to American authority, it was evident that the commander possessed that right inasmuch as he did not think it necessary to write to Nirashington for orders when an affront was offered him in the Chinese waters. The British flag having been outrageously hauled down by the Chinese officials, he believed that the British authorities had no option left in the matter, but were bound to resort to those hostile measures to obtain reparation. He should, indeed, regret that the conduct of the Government at home should be visited with censure in consequence of those proceedings; but he should regret still more if they had had the weakness and the pusillanimity to shrink from the discharge of their duty, and to fail in supporting their officials for the steps they had taken to vindicate British commerce and British honour. (Hear, hear.) They had no such wish as bad been imputed to them of addin g China to the British empire. This unfortunate dispute hat arisen ant with the Emperor of China, but with the local govern anent of Canton, which kept the Government of Pekin al together in the dark as to those proceedings. His hope was that it would not spread into a general war with the empire of China. On the contrary, there were not only satisfactory relations between the English Government and the Chinese authorities established, but he thought that the proceedings which had taken place would rather lead to our whole relations with that empire being placed upon a more satisfactory footing. He trusted in God that the time w, rot d come when that groat portion of the human race which inhabited the empire would be brought into closer communication with the more civilised pordon of toe world ; and that the tyrannical and creel government like that of Canton, which seemed only to exist for the misery and degradation of the human race, would be re placed by one more alive to the blessings of humanity. (Hear, hear.) Sir E. B. LYTTON said' that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, although speaking with great earnestness in . support of the proceedings of the British officials at Canton, had not, he (Sir E. B. L.) thought, suc ceeded in giving a very satisfactory reply to the powerful arguments of the honourable member for the West Riding. Before he (Sir E. B. L.) sat down, if the house would favour him with its indulgence, he hoped he should be able to show how groundless was the position assume I by the right honourable gentleman. There were two questions really before them out of which many others• incidentally arose. One was the question whether the Arrow was bona fide belonging to the English na tion, according to the plain meaning of the 17th article of the supplemental treaty. And supposing it was so, the next question was this —were the circumstances connected with it such as to warrant the adoption of those hostile proceedings on the part of the British officials for the al leged outrage that was committed towards her by the Chi nese authorities ? The hon. member for the west riding very properly asked how could a vessel be British which was notoriously Chinese in every sta se of its history—being built, owned, manned, fought for and litigated for by Chi nese, and with nothing English about itexcept theacciden tal presence of a lad under age, who was hired by the Danish consul, and who was his nominal master? He (Sir E. B. Lytton) also asked, in the name of common sense, how could this vessel so ch iraeterised belong to the Eng lish in accordance with the terms of the 17th article of the supplemental treaty ? The right hon. gentleman alluded to the Mediterranean class of vessels. Now, the only mode by which those vessels could be turned into English ones was by a colonial ordinance ; an I they might as well en deavour to turn a tea tree into an oak tree. These colo nial ordinances might bind our subjects, but neither their ordinances nor their acts of Parliament could have the effect of altering the international law in regard to other nations. When they referred to the treaty of Nankin, the Chinese had a right t 3 consider the date of that treaty ; and at that date there was no small class of vessels that could possibly have belonged to the English nation. The Ch'nese were not bound to allow this country a right by subeequent regulations to appropriate to herself a vessel that was built, owned, and manned by Chinese, and which essentially belonged to the nation of China. (Hear.) It was a fundamental axiom of all treaties that they should be construed according to the terms and usages prevalent at the time that the treaty was made and concluded. Now it was by ne moans the usage at the date of this treaty for the British nation to claim such small vessels as those. The Chinese, therefore, a s k e d th e B r iti s h G overnmen t t o d e fi ne what they meant by an English vessel ; and the only reply was to refer them to our navigation laws. (Hear, hear.) It was only by the Shipping Act of HU that even an attempt to torture this into an' English vessel could be made. And this torturing destroyed the vital principle of that act itself. Supposing that according to the English law they could naturalise every Chinese in Hong Kong, they should regard the operation of the law of nations in such a case. He asked could they a•ccording to the law of nations make such naturalisation a protection to such natives in their own country as against the independent sovereign whose subjects they had naturalised? Would they natu ralise Austrian subjects, and without the consent of the Emperor of Austria make that naturalisation good as ag iinat his tmperial Majesty's rights over his o wn subjects! This custom of naturalisation was founded upon civilisatiou and based upen principles of reason. Would any indapeu nent sovereigu suffer such an infringement upon his rights as had been in this case contended for ? Could -they take the vessels and the subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and without the Emperor's consent exercise a sovereign right over his sovereign liberties ? The 17th article was the only one in the treaty- by which it could be contended that this lorcha was a British vessel, but it did pot follow that be cause according to that article certain vessels which had complied with certain regulations were to sail under Bri tish protection, this vessel had complied with those regula tions, or at all came within the meaning of the treaty. Ac cording to the English law she could not have been an Eng lish vessel at the time of the seizure ; she could not have been so according to the law of nations • and, he therefore denied that she could have been made English by doing what vessels tiat were English ware required to do. If a:, the time of signing the treaty the British Government in: formed the Chinese authorities that they would sell all the privileges and protection of British vessels to vessels be longing to Chinese natives, did they suppose that the Chi nese or any people in the world placed in a similar position would have signed such an article? (Cheers.) Did they for an instant imagine that any independent govern ment would acquiesce is this monstrous privilege of sel:ing the British flag to the subjects of another nation ? (Cheers.) What was the reason alleged by the British agents to the authorities of Hong Kong for this ship registration atrangement ? Why, "that legal trading might be protected, and illegal trading prevented." (Hear, hear.) But what had been the result of the measure? That in two instances our flag had protected smugglers, and that In this instance it had protected apirate, to the destruction of legal trade ! (Loud cheers.) He maintained that this lorcha Arrow, belonging to Chinese subjects, and employed in the Chinese waters, could not at the date of the treaty leave been a British vessel. (Hear, hear) If since the date of te • treaty they had made a colonial ordinance, that might bind their own subjects, but it could not have the effect of international law, or bind the Chinese, unless the Chinese Government bad agreed toit, which it was clear they had net. (Hoar.) This wag clear upon the principles of international law, as expounded by Wheaton and other leading authori ties. It was clear, from the 17th article of the treaty, that this could not be called a British vessel; and, if that were so, they could not avail themselves of the 9th art. ' which said that, if any Chinese malefactor wer e o n b oa rd a Bri tish vessel, and that the Chinese authorities wished to ar rest him, they should first apply to the British consul. That 9th rule applied to British merchantmen; but this was not a British merchantman, but a Chinese vessel. (Cheers.) But granting, for argument that it was a British vessel, and did belong to English subjects, he then asked, was the act of the Chinese so inexcusable—was it so out rageous, so insulting to the dignity and interests of this country as to merit the bombardment of Canton ? (Cheers.) The right hon, gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies hal said that the evidence in the matter was so over whelming in favour of the British authorities, that he won dered any man cowl 1 question the course they had pursued. What was that evidence ? 1 he British authorities had only four witnesses : two Chinese and two Englishmen. (Heal: hear.) They had two Chinese, who deposed to the fact that , the flag was flying at the time the lochs was boarded, and that it was pulled down. But Commissioner Yeh had not four, but more than seventy witnesses—soldiers and msn daring, and he had evidence that the flag could not have been flying at the time it is alleged to have been pulled down. (Hear, and cheers.) There was no denying this — that it was the established custom not to hare the flag flying till the ship was under weigh. there was no con tradiction to that. (Cheers.) Bet assuming that the flag was flying, according to the evidence of one of the Chinese, the mandarin who gave orders for the pulling down of the flag said, "This can't be a British ioreha, there is no foreigner on board; haul down the flag." (Cheers.) And when the officer came on board a vessel which had been notoriously a pirate ship—which must have been known to all the Chinese authorities—which was stated to have been employed in the disturbances between the Imperialists and the insurgents, and when he did not find a foreigner on board, was it not reasonable of him to believe, if there was a flag flying, that it was a pirate's flag. (Hear, and i cheers.) This was not merely a question of who was right and who was wrong ; it was not only a question as to whether the Chinese were wrong. tut it w P s a q uestion al to whether th ey were throughout the whole proceeding so outrageously wrong as to justify the British authorities in the very extraordinary course which they had taken? Were the English to be the merciless avengers of legisla tion in their dealings with foreign countries, while at home even severe off ences against th law did not draw down death upon the offenders? (Hear.) Were they to ba phi losophers in national legislation, and ruthless exterminators in every infringement of international law? (Cheers.) While our Ministers at home were dealing mildly with offenders who pr e y e d upon the very - vitals of society, our representatives abroad engaged in this—he would not call it " war," but in the wholesale massacre of our helpless customers in a remote *corner of the globe. (Cheers.) And at best, this was but a petty misunderstanding about a trumpery ordinance which the Board of Trade ad, witted to be extremely questionable, and which was in direct variance with o th er portions of the arrangements with China. (H ear , hear.) Commissioner Yeh was blamed by Government for not having apologised. They asked the commissioner to acknowledge that (the the vessel which he commissioner) believed to be Chinese belonged to the English. Now, in asking him to do that, did they not ask him to be a traitor to his coun try and his Sovereign ; and to admit the authority of the representatives of England to dictate laws to Chine ? In stead of making any such admission, Commissioner Yeh declared, over and ove r aga i n, that if the vesse l were Eng lishsay to Sir J. Bowring th a t h e ( Commiss i one r Y e h) he would have adopt e d a diff erent course an d he did would be very much obliged to hi m if, t o preven t f u t u remisundeia s t a ndings, he would n o t sell English registries to Chi nese ships iu future. (Hear, and cheers.) He (Sir E. B. Lyt ton) was indeed astoni s h e d to h ear the r i g ht h o n. gentle man (Mr. Labouchere) speak of the language use d by Mr. Consul Parkes as somethi ng remarkab l y courteous—some thing remarkably prope r f or an official in his rank to ad dress to a viceroy in Commissioner Yeh's position. Now, without repeating what had been said in another place on the suljeot, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) would just make one I votation from Mr. Parkes's letter. On the 221 October :hat gentleman writes to Commissioner Yeh —" I should to your excellency that I have sueliclear and conclu- Ave proofs of the facts that your excellency aft 3nipts to i lent'." -Now, let, the house mark the words, " attempts to deny." (Hear.) Why, in all Commissioner Yeh's cor- I respondence there was ne phrase so gratuitously insulting as that. (Hear, hoar.) Would it not have been more be- I coming in Mr. Parkes to have said, " the facts on which your excellency has been misinformed." (Hear.) This young man was addressing ono of the five Cabinet Minis ters of China. How would any of her Majesty's Ministers like to be so - addressed by the consul of another State ? Lord•Clarenden had said in another place that "it Ras evidently an after-thought" of the Chinese authorities to say that the vessel was not an English one ; but what did the very first letter of Commissioner Yeh say in page 6 " This vessel, having a Chinese owner, is not an English vessel." And Sir J. Bowring in one of his first letters made an a lmission that the protection could not be legally extended for more than a year without renewal of the registration. It had turned out that the time had in this case expired ; and yet step by step our representatives in China had proceeded to the destruction of a city, which bad, perhaps, entirely fallen, for the sake of a vessel which could not he legally protected. What a miserable excuse it was that the Chinese did not know that ? (Cries of " Hear, hear.") Falsehood did not consist merely in telling a lie; but also in the wilful suppression of a truth. (Hear.) Was that the honour of the English nation ? Or was it not the honour of an Old Bailey attorney ? (Cheers.) He (Sir E. B. Lytton) maintained that the words of the 10th rule did not provide that all vessels which had been registered were, when more than a year at sea, protected till their return. The wording of the rule was distinct, as enjoining that the renewal of the registry should take place within one year ; the extended time in case of vessels at sea applying to the depositing in the Colonial Secretary's office of the registry, which, when the vessel was in port, should be produced at the time of the renewal of the registry, but in case she was at sea at the time of such renewal, then on her return. (Hear.) Great stress was laid on the allegation that the Emperor of China had not carried out the treaty of Nankin, by the admission of foreigners into Canton ; but according to the recognised principles of iuternaeional law the Em peror would be excused from carrying out such a provision if it was either irneracticab!e or pernicious to his state for him to do so. (Hear, he tr.) Louis XII., than whom a more honourable King never existed, was called upon by the States General of France not to carry out his treaty with the Emperor Maximilian and the Archduke Philip on the ground that it would be pernicious to the French people; and the Emperor of China's refusal to admit foreigners to Cant-:n had always been based upon the latter ground. (Hear.) It appeared from the evidence of the French Jesuits who had visited the interior of Chins that the Chinese Government, like that of ancient Egypt, paid great defer ence to the customs and wishes of the people, and there was , good reason to believe that in this case fan ,ticism and preju dice on the part of the people might be too strong for him. a!1 events our proceedings, which he (Sir B. Lytton) thought were a stain on the 19th century, were not calcu lated to improve the Chinese opinion of foreigners ; and as for our proposition to protect British subjects by a British army, what independent sovereign would consent to such a thing in his own dominions ? (Cheers.) Under these cir cumstances what are we to do ? Was it our business to insist on that part of the treaty, seeing that the Emperor of China had observed other parts of it, and a lmitted us into those ports where he could, al?d only did not a lmit us into Canton, because he could not? Was it our duty—were we to insist upon it, no matter if it were impossible or pet nicious or not? But, even if the treaty were capable of fulfilment in this respect, could we possibly have a more unhappy occasion than that which had been chosen for the purpose'of enforcing it ? The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had told the house that this was not the Oast time that there had been various insults and hostilities on the part of Chiva, an 1 he referred especially to the y ear 1852. But what was the reason which Sir J. Bowring urged in, that year for pressing forward our claim? Why, that mutual tranquillity reigned at Canton, and that the prejudices of the Chinese towards us were greatly abated. That was the happy state of things he found in lets 2, an-1 which he began to disturb in 18;4. He now, with the most innocent simplicity, pressed for ward our claim to outer the city, because, having attacked and bombarded it with our forces, the Chinese were animated with the greatest hatred and animosity against us. The whole question was brought before Lord Palmerston by Sir G. Beuhain in one of those despatches, than which none more admirable were ever sent to a Government. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. Bonham fairly put before the noble lord the whole of the bearings of the case, and the disadvantages which would accrue from our not enforcing that part of the treaty. All the rubbish we heard about the Chinese not being sufficiently afraid was urged then as now ; but Sir George Benham came to the conclusion that the advantages of enforcing the treaty would be as nothing compared with the risk and the danger accompanying it . ; and the noble lord, in one of those admirable letters which he wrote to Sir George Ben ham, stated distinctly that "it had always appeared to him to be doubtful whether the right, of entering the city of Canton would be productive of any material advantage to British residents, while it had been plain - that the unre stricted entrance of British residents into that city might lead to disputes and collisions between British subjects and Chinese, the consequences of which might be serious." (Hear, hear.) What was the advantage to be gained, then, in the opinion of the noble lord and Sir G. Bonham—not by the indiscriminate entranee into Canton, be it observed, of the commercial English. No ; that was deemed to be undesirable on all sides, and in 1819 the noble lord only de sired that the -English superintendent and consul should have access to the Chinese authorities on special occasions at Canton. No doubt that object was a very desirable one; desirable in 1819, and desirable now. But in 1849 the noble lord sail that that object, however desirable in itself, was not worth a naval and military operation ; and accordingly he resolved—not to renounce it, but to suspend it indefinitely, and that for reasons which applied more strongly at the present day than it did at that time ; be cause if ever the treaty was to be enforced by naval and military operations, surely the time to do it was when the treaty was fresh, and our moral claim had not been weak• ened by its baying been left in abeyance seven or eight years. If the reason that we did not urge it then was the preju lice which existed on the part of the inhabitants of Canton, and the noble lord bad wisely left it until time had softened that prejudice, could weexpect that prejudice now to diminish when we had bombarded the city, and every Chinese, who bad lost brother or son in the conflict, was bursting for revenge ? Whilst, therefore, he (sir E. B. Lytton) admired the policy of the noble lord in 1811, he must say that he was greatly astonished that he should have lent Isis sanction to a diametrically opposite policy in 1851 Lor 1 Melrnesbary also wisely enforced the' precau tion which the noble lord had laid down; and Lord Cla- Tendon wafethe first of our ministers, who, listening to the siren voice of Sir John Bearing, had plunged us into this Charybdis. (Hear, hear.) With reg trd to Sir J. B rw ling they all knew that he was an able and accomplished man ; but he was also a man of enthusiastic temperam and like all men of genius was very desirous of carrying out his own wishes. From the first he was seized by a strong ambition at all hazards to force an entrance into Canton ; and although he did not doubt that Sir J. Bow ring was a humane and honourable man towards his own countrymen, yet when agents of European Governments came in contact with Oriental nations the interests of hunia .uity and justice required of a wise Government, far re moved from the scene, to sterols° tho most vigilant check upon the acts of those agents ; and when the Government gave its unqualified approval to the proceedings of men like Sir John Bowring and Mr. Consul Parkes. the latter vanished from the eye, and it was only with the Govern ment, that we have to deal. Here, then, in his place as a representative of the people, it was the Government that ho charged. He charged them with sanctioning an ordi nance which, rtnkn awn to Parliament, had turned into a dead letter that grand actof the Imperial Legislature which regulated the whole trade and navigation of the country. He charged them with enforcing that ,ordinence by violat ing the law of nations and the spirit of English honour. Ie charged them with lending the authority of the Crown to a homicide under false pretences, belying the generous character of our country, and offensive to every sentiment of right and justice of which our nature could approve. We were told that we must teach China a lesson by means of force, but China knew and dreaded our force, and the only thing he questioned was the friendliness of our inten tions and the simple rectitude of our objects. (Hear; hear.) He contended that in dealing with nations less civilised than ourselves it was only by lofty truth and forbearance that we could succeed in conciliating them, and that our commercial interests would never prosper in China by making ourselves the objects of detestation - to its people. (Cheers.) - - - Mr. L. DAVIES opposed the resolution. Sir J. RAMSDEN could net agree that the house was to put out of view the question whether or not the Chinese authorities hal broken the treaty. That was a point which, he thought, met them at every turn. Much had been said about the illegality of the register granted to the lorcha; but it must be remembered that when the or dinaece authorising registers was formally transmitted to Commissioner Yeti, nearly a year before these disputes, he made no objection whatever. He had, therefore, precluded himself from objecting to these registers afterwards, He quite concurred in the opinion of Mr. Cobden, that, the bloodshed and destruction of property at Canton imparted A gloomy complexion to the question ; and if ho could de tect any feeling of anger or animosity against the Chinese on the part of either the consul or the admiral, there was no censure he would not be prepared to inflict upon them. But such was not the case ; anti the only error lie thought Sir J. Bowriug had committed was in supposing that the lorcha hal forfeited her register, when she certainly had not. He read the proclamation of Commissioner Yoh, offering 100 dollars for the head of every Englishman, and indignantly repudiated the idea of international law being applied to a people a ho could sanction such outrages. Sir. T. HERBERT, as havipg served in China, strongly condemned the proceedings of Admiral Seymour. Sir E. PERRY excited the laughter and ironical cheers of the house by his opening remark that if this motion had come from the Conservatives with a view to displace the Ministry, , he would have opposed it without reference to its merits. But as he believed Mr. Cobden brought it forward on grounds altogether independent of party feelings, he came to the con sideration of the question on its merits, and that considera tion led him to believe that the British authorities were alto gether in the wrong. Ho believed the Governor had been urged on to his present course by the British merchants at Canton, who were all engaged in the smuggling trade, and who were, besides, all in debt to the Chinese, and would be glad to have their debts cancelled by a war. He advised that Government should now send a high Offic'al, backed by a strong naval force to Mina, who might examine into the points of dispute, and then act upon his own views of justice, tempered with humanity, which the force at his disposal would prevent being mistaken for fear. Mr. GREGSON defended the British merchants at Canton, and strongly reprobated the language iu which Mr. Cobden and Sir E. Perry bad spoken of them He recommended Lord Palmerston to insist on the strict performance of the Chinese, as he had insisted on the strict performance of the Russian, treaty. Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I have every disposition to pay respect to the wishes and opinions of the British merchants trading with Canton. At the same time, though every ono must allow duo weight to their opinions and representations, we must not forget, according to the motion of the boa. gen tleman the member for the West Riding, that it becomes the House of Commons seriously to contemplate what has taken place, and determine upon, according to our own views, the rights, interests, and honour .of our country, and not allow our opinions to be entirely guided by any set of merchants, however respectable, or by any local views however naturally entertained. (Hear, hear.) With that opinion, I listened with great attention, and with no less anxiety to the state ment of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I had hoped that the ambiguity which had seemed to rest upon the policy of her Majesty's Government might be dispelled by the statement which he would make ; that some new argument might be adduced ; but above all, that some new view of a distinet policy might be unfolded, to which Parliament might look for future security. Sir, I am sorry to say that in all these particulars the speech of my right hon. 1 friend is a disappointment. (Hear.) The question is naturally divided, as it appears to me, under three heads—the Ist, the licensing the lorcha Arrow ; 2dly, our entrance into Canton demanded according to treaty ; and 3dly, the policy which her Majesty's Governmda intend to pursue ; and tlfe oljects at which they aim in the — hostilities which have been carried on in China. ( dear.) Now with respect to the first pointy I need not detain the house long, and especially as I need net enter into the question - of the triple illegality to w:iich my I bon, friend (Mr. Cobden) has referred. That argument has stated, by him with great perspicuity, while the goner 1 law of nations as bearing upon the case has just been laid • I down by the hon. and - learned gentleman the member for Devonport (Sir .E. Perry). There has, however, been a - statement made by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the 'Colonies, which, though it apparently burs upon the ques tion, in reality; as it Kerns to me, does not touch the facts at all. The right hon. gentleman states that for a long time -200 years, be says—however, it matters not how long the feriod, in certain of our colonies a practice prevailed of grant ing licences to colonial - Vessels within particular limits and for particular specified purposes. No doubt those passes have been given, and no doubt they were legal, so far as they were not in coutravention of any act of the Imperial Parliament.- If they are iu contravention of any act of the Imperial Par liament, I conceive they have no force or efficacy. Now, with regard to the particular question of the licensing of the lorcha Arrow, it seems that Parliament has declared that exceptions were to be made with regard to British vessels and British ownership, but as there - were exceptions, certain rules were laid down by which the use - of those privileges was strictly guarded. Amongst the rules, therefore, was ono that every ordinance of the colony should be sanctioned by her Majesty• in Council. That, I imagine. cannot be evaded nor set aside ; and that, I believe, has not been observed with regard to the ordinances at Hong Kong. But, sir, there is a much more serious question, for the point bef ,re us is, not whether at Gibraltar or Malta there might be passes granted which would be effectual for certain purposes ; but the question is whether those passes, when given to persons who are the subjects of another country, can avail to override the law of that coma try I (Lou -I cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, sir, as an ex ample of what I mean—and I will refer elsewhere, as my right honourable friend says that with regard to the Chinese be need not be as particular as with others. Take the case of Gibraltar ; there are many Spauiards residing there. Sup pose that oue of them had been a resident for :5 years, and got the command of one of those vessels—that he had on board a number of Spaniards, amongst whom he had em ployed a man who had been lately guilty of piracy —does any oue believe that if this vessel were to go to Malaga or Albu ceras, and that, if this p'rate were recognised, the Spanish authorities w tild hesitate to take him out of the vessel and make him subject to their jurisdiction ? In this respect I con ceive that the general law must prevail. Although your own law may hold good in your own pOrts, it cannot be made to prevail in other countries of which the crew of the particular vessel ate subjects. And will any man tell me that supposing the Governor of Malaga or Albuceras had arrested the man, and that he was detained by the Spanish authorities, that the governor would have ventured to order the commander of her Majesty's ship to attack. either of those places, and to burn and destroy the Spanish vessels and ports about the . place ? (Hear, hear.). I think, sir, that all will agree in saying that no such course would be adopted. It might have been that the Spanish authorities were wrong—the case would tl : en have been referred home, and the Government at home would have applied to the Spanish authorities for redress, which would, no doubt, ultimately be given. (Hear, hear.) And lot me say again with regard to this part of the question, and every part of the question which forms the gist of the accusation of the hon. member for the West Riding, that it is not our authorities at Canton who have raised the disputed question, but by force of arms our officials have attempted the solution of that for which no such urgency was requited. And after all this they appeal to the authorities. Then we come to the next question, wh'oh is one of great importance —that is, as to our right to enter into the city- of Can ton. The terms of the treaty are . explicit enough ; • they give us the right to enter that city, as well as the other ports. But that question bas been postponed from time to time, awl the noble lord at the head of the Government and the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs have re spectively stated most able reasons and arguments against pressing that question. It is one of those advantages .wor,h possessing, if obtained by fair negotiation, but the whole ad vantage of it is destroyed by a re, ort to arms. Well, Sir J. Bowring, unfortunately, did not take that view of the sub ject. But more than this, ho has added to this difficult ques tion, which had not been solved from the year 1842 to 185 G, that of a quarrel already existing, and this state of things has naturally embittered and aggravated the differences between the Chinese Government and the local Government of Hong Kong. I can well imagine that the British Government might say our treaty rights have not been fulfilled ; we have suffered • we will state those injuries to the Chinese Govern ment, and unless those injuries aro within a certain period re dressed, we give notice of it that we shall consider it as a castes ben and equivalent to a declaration of war. So great a question ought not to be solved without the full, slow, and deliberate determination of the. British Government. . This. might be politic. It would certainly give the Chinese Go vernment a certain time to determine upon the course they should take. It would, at least, be iu conformity with the usage of civilised nations, and not in contradiction to your own treaty rights.. But what has been done by Sir J. Bowring and Sir M. Seymour ? This question of the Arrow took place, I believe, on the Bth of October. On the 21st and 22d the Commissioner Yeh wrote letters which certainly appear to me to be very like an at/stogy for the outrage, although Sir John Bowring said the language was evasive. It is remarkable that one of the seamen on board the Arrow shows by his evidence that the animus was not to insult the British Government, for he says that the mandarin came on board, and looking around, said, " There is no captain here ; there is no Englishman here ; this can not be a British vessel, it must be Chinese, and therefore take down the flag." Well, is not that a proof that if there wore an Englishman on board he avould not have hauled down the flag, but would have asked him quietly to remedy the grievance of which he complained. (Hear, hear.) Besides this and other evidence of their mild intentions the commis sioner bad restored the 12 seamen that bad been taken, and declared that never again should a foreign lorcha be deprived of her men or have her flag hauled down. I think this case was a very paltry affair in the beginning, and Sir John Bow ring might have easily arranged it by saying that he would report it to his government at home. But, instead of that course, on the 22d of October, Sir John Bowring and Admi ral Seymour make a positive demand that the entrance into the city shall begranted, and instead of giving three months, or one month, or one week, they proceed at once on the same day to destroy the forts, and to recommence warlike opera tions. (Hear, hear.) Now, it is upon this point I think that the responsibility of the government commences. In the first instance they receive front Sir John Bowring and Admiral Seymour an account of the hauling down of the flag of the Arrow, and of the taking of an Imperial junk in consequence. The Foreign Secretary says that the saw officers of the Crown were consulted, and that they declared that the Arrow was legally entitled to the privileges of a British vessel. The goVernment wrote their approval of the conduct of the authorities at Canton, and say " You have done right in taking possession of th e mperial junk." So far uo great harm was done, but still I think a caution should have been added not to pursue hostilities further. , But when they re ceived, at the end of December, an account of further hos tilities—that Sir J. Bowring and Sir Michael Seymour had of their own authority undertaken to raise this great question, upon which the whole of the amicable intercourse with China depended, it seems to me that her Majesty's Government should have considered that those officials had committed a serious offence—that they had without just cause placed in jeopardy the amicable relations with a great and populous empire, and that they had presumed to take upon themselves the solution of a question which three separate Secretaries of State had decided in the clearest and most explicit language should not be decided without a reference to the hems go vernment, and without due deliberation on theirpart.. On January the 10th the "noble earl at the head of our foreign af fairs informs Sir J. Bowring that " her Majesty's Govern ment entirely approves of the course adopted by Sir Machael Seymour and yourself." Now, Ido think that this is a very serious matter. I think that the giving of such approbation in those few words, without explicit instruc. tions —without saying what was to be done under the cir cumstances—without any notice of the - assumption of autho i_rity—l think, sir, that this was a neglect of the solemn duty imposed, upon her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) Well, now I come to another question. It does seem to me, serious as matters are, that it is one which especially demands the consideration of Parliament, and upon which hitherto we have had no information from the Govern nent. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies says we are not at war with China. Well, if we are not at war with China, it certainly is not the fault of Sir John Bowring, or Admiral Seymour, or her Majesty's Government. (Hear.) It is the result of the forbearance of the Chinese Government fdr not immediately, in all the other parts of the empire, de claring that we must be considered as carrying on hostilities. Although I do not admire the Chinese civilisation, I do not believe that any power in Europe would allow their forts to be battered down, their towns to be set on fire in one or two places, and not resent it as an attack upon the independence and the integrity of the empire. The Chinese have not done so, and happily we are not at war with them. On the Bth of Oct., and the following day's, Consul Parkes asked that the mon of the lorcha should be returned; that some kind of apology should be made for hauling down the flag, and that an indemnity should be paid to the owner of the Arrow for the time they had boon incarcerated. Well that was not a very serious demand. Oct the 27th of the same month they proceeded to add to that demand a further demand which could hardly be claimed without a resort to extensive hostili ties—viz., the -entrance into the city of Canton. 'On the 25th November Sir John Bowring wrote to M. de Courcy on the subject of this claim, and that gentleman had replied to him 'with a degree of, prudence and discretion which I wish were imitated by our own officers, namely, that he had withdrawn his forces which bad previously acted in con junction with the English ; that he would not undertake any further operations without the authority of the Emperor of the French. Sir J. Bowring then writes to thi s gen tl eman to say that he was very sorry to find that the tricolour had disappeared; that he thanked him for the assistance and moral aid he had already given him in connection with the grave events in China, " which cannot but have an important bearing upon the question that deeply concerns us all, namely, the revision of our tariff iu China." Now, what does this mean I You are entitled to ask whether it was wise to re quire of China that she should completely execute the treaty made by Sir H. Pottinger in 1842. But this is quite another question. Yon have no right to a revision of treaties—to new terms such as being admitted to all other parts of the empire, wiihout going to war, or being held as a justifiable cause of war, I defy you to say that the hauliug down of the flag of the miserable Arrow, and the refusal after almost an understandiug had been come to since 1849 that the Bri tish should not enter Canton—l defy you to say that you have a justifiable cause of war with China, or even that you can claim a 'right of the revision of those treaties on account of those two miserable.differences at Canton. But where is this to end ? What is the meaning of it ? You say that we are not at war with China; that we have merely a local quarrel with the authorities at Canton. But this new treaty which you demand cannot be granted by the governor of Canton, it can only be granted by the Emperor at Pekin, and upon a reference to the great interests of the empire. For my part, I do not wish these operations to go on. I fear they may lead to a long and broody conflict ; bat especially, in the disorganised state of China, I apprehend that they will lead to social anarchy—to a rupture ,of relations between man and man, and.to a cessation with this country of those a dvantk:cous relations of commerce which have hitherto existed ; and for . the purpose of a very doubtful good we risk the p ossessionof all those enormous benefits_ The hon. gentleman who has just spoken allud e d to the resentment which char:fctwerhiiseehs. the conduct of the Chinese. Many of thos e we complain have been committed by low offences vagabonds. (Hear.) in e He tells you at the same time a the great increase trade of silk and tea. Well, I ask, is the whole prospect of our friendly commerce with that country, which J. so advan. tageous, to be sacrificed by some whim of Sir Bowring, who, in order to gratify it, h esi t a tes not to plunge us into a war ? (Hear.) Wo are not, up to this moment, informed what the exact nature of those demands are. How do we know but that Sir John Bowring is m at o t s h t is co m er o c m iv s e nt m m ea a n k s in igu fresh demands, and is adopting the his power to enforce them. But the-right hon. gentlem an the Secretary for the Colonies says that we must emancipate China from her cruel and tyrannical Government. Mr. LABOUCHERE —The noble lord has not correctly re presented what I said. I said I hoped that the result of those proceedings would be to emancipate Canton h ow it, govarunient, which I believe to be one of the greatest PO - Bible curses. (Laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I believe that this idea takes the shape of a new demand, And that not satisfied with the appointments _which the Emperor of China -makes, this governor at Canton is to be disp'aced iu order to make room for somebody else, who perhaps will be recommended by the Colonial Secretary of this country to his attention. (Laughter). - The 'experience which her Majesty's Govern. - melt lately had at Naples will no doubt suffice to instruct them in regard to the internal government of China (Hear.) Commissioner Yell is said to be a very bad g overnor. I am told that he is likely to b e disavowed. That, however, does not appear to be the case. The right hon. gentleman said he was high in favour with the Emperor, and therefore not likely to be removed. His views am probably adopted by the Government of Pekin. Well, if that he the case, I think you have a right fairly to demand, but not certainly to inter fere with the appointments of the Emperor of China. Per haps, indeed, ho might say, " After all, my commission'r may be a very tyrannical, violent man, but I cannot say that your superintendent is a very mild and moderate individual." (Hear.) That a mandarin looking after a pirate in a doubtful case should have led to such consequences of bloodshed and destruction eannot be too much lamentel— (hear, hear)—but, sir, I regret to find that in all- the papers laid before Parlia ment, and amongst all the terms of approbation applied to the resident and the admiral, there is not one single• expres sion to intimate that the Government lament those sad events. There is no expression of sorrow at it. (Hear.) I think it would have been decent of them to have expressed that feel ing. I find that in other cases where the flag of a nation has been used to protect criminal pursuits, my noble friend at the head of the Government has with just indignation co n plained of such an unjust prostitution of the flag. I find that my noble friend, in a letter to the American Govern moot in 1840, respecting a Spanish vessel, with a Spanish ' crew, which was engaged in the slave trade, and sailed under a licence granted by the American consul at Cuba—l find in that document, after stating at some length the general pri vilege from search enjoyed by vessels bona fide sailing under the flag of a friendly nation, my noble friend, alluding to vessels trading in slaves,- said that these vessels could not expect to evade the right of search "by hoisting a piece of bunting with the stars and stripes of the United Stites." - (Loud cheers.) Sir, had opinions like these prevailed amongst the authorities at Canton they would have said, " You must search this vessel in order to see whether she has papers.;“ and they would have found that her registry had expired— (hear, hear)—that according to Sir J. Bowling's own law she was not entitled to protection, and thus the case would have • fallen as it ought to have fallen. (Cheers.) But, infortu nately, I must say that I think the worst part of this case, and one which Ido not see has been censured by her Ma jesty's Government, was-that Sir J. Bowling, while he de. clared that this vessel had lost all right to British protection, still sets up her claim to that protection against the Chinese commissioner, and tells him to apologise for -this insult to the British flag which has been unlawfully used, (Loud cheers from the OppoSition.) Sir, I have heard a great deal Bleb' —too much, indeed--about the prestige this vountry (Flear.); We used to hear of the character of England, of the honour of England, of the reputation of England. I trust, sir, that time character, and the honour, and the reputation of this country will ever be dear ti us all. (Cheers.) But as to the prestige ieplirated from thoie qualities —separated from character, separated from honour, separated from reputation —I have no wish to see it maintained. (Renewed cheering.) Some persons have said, " It is true, we have a bad case ; it is true we have acted. with injustice ; but we must persevere iu the wrong ; we must continue to do that injusti e, or otherwise the Chinese will think we are afraid of them." In reply to that 'statement, I on this occasion say, " Be just and fear not." (Hear, hear, and great cheering.) , On the point of prestige Ido net pretend to judge ; but I cannot but con sider that the honour of this country will be raised more than • ever when it can be said that a troublesome, meddlesome official, having prostituted the arms of England, and induced a brave admiral to commence hostilities which should never have been begun. the English House of Commons declared that they would be no party to that conduct —(loud cheers) —that neither for commercial advantage, nor for political ad• vantages, nor for any other possible advantage to the coml• try, would they consent to stain that honour which, after all, has been and must be the sure foundation of her greatness. (Loud and general cheering continued for some time after the . noble lord had resumed his seat.) Mr. LOWE said that when he considered the signal favour -with which the speech of the noble lord had been ni ceived—(cheers)—he should ask the indulgence of the hones while he stated one or two points which had not been touched. on before that evening. The noble lord had said that we could not give the Chinese any right as againit their Emperor. The hon. baronet opposite (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) had taken the same ground. (IlePr, hear.) If that doctrine were good a great many British ships would lose the protection they now enjoyed ; all would bo excluded from that protection except ships British-built, British-owned, and Britisirtnatined. Hong Kong had been ceded to England, and the inhabitants handed over to English Government. It had been said that these poisons remained Chinese subjects; but that proposition could not bo maintained, for all that a country could do to cast off its subjects had been done by the Chinese Government in the case of the inhabitants of Hong Kong. These people were quag subjects of the British Croirn e and they might be indicted for high treason did they take up arms against her Majesty. That point had not been sufficiently considered. And what condition could be more miserable than that of the Chinese, if they had lost the protection of the Chinese Government without having obtained that of this country? It was to give them this protection that the disputed ordinance had been promulgated ; and this was a bureaus regulation, which the house ought to uphold for the sake's!! humanity. The ordinance was legal in its inception, and it was for those who disputed it to show that it had since be come illegal. As to the Arrow not being under protection at the time of the arrest he denied , that proposition. IR fact, the construction put upon the rule by the hon. baronet (Sir E. B. Lytton) was too monstrous for reception by the human mind. The grammatical construction of the rule might admit of some doubt, but not such a one as would prevail against the manifest intention of the rule if- the matter were brought before a competent tribunal for a de cision. If British protection had, been refused to this lorcba, what would have been the indignation of the bola, member for time West Riding at the wretched quibbling and sophistry of the British agents in China ? But the gantlets was not merely a legal one, but one relating to the animus of the Chinese authorities against this country. A letter from Sir J. Bowring to Commissioner Yeb, in Nov , 1855, about 11 months before the occurrence under discussion, informed that governor - that all persons, natives included, in Hen Kong could obtain for their vessels protection by registration. This letter also contained a warning to the , Chinese ou the subject of interference with vessels so prOtect e a. Ne remonstrance wss merle to this letter. Therefore the Chinese did not in the Al' row ease act from ignorance of the effect of the colonial regit tration. Much as be deplored the consequences that had en sued from the proceedings at Canton, it appeared to him that not upon the British authorities in China or the governineet at home, but upon those who committed the Lavrless and advised act of seizing the crew of the lorcha, rested the re sponsibility of those consequences. He was no advocate for dealing with Oriental powers on different principles as far ae justice was concer ne d, f rom th ose w hi ch regu latedour deal ings with European powers. Conscience was of no country, and the laws of morality and justice wore at least as exten sive as the world in which we lived, (A_laugh and oh.) But in the manner of dealing with Oriental people,- in cases where affront had been put upon us, there was a difference. Tiaras that they proportioned their conduct towards those with whom they came in contact by their own ideas of their power of defending themselves, and aggressions which a great nation could afford to pass over when committed by a member, of the civilised confederacy of Europe must be dealt with promptly and punished on the spot, Tho violence in the present case did not come from us. blit froni the Chinese themselves: They were offered every opportunity of apology if they had chosen to avail themselves of it. They were re quested to return the twelve men and they did 'so. (Hear,) But then they were to return them publicly: that was, ado mit before the face - of the people, in whose presence theg' dishonoured the British flag, that they were bound to make reparation. The insult_to our honour they declined to redresh and they had declined that redress up to this very day. It might not be very philosophical, perhaps, to,connect with It flag which ; after all, was only a bit of painted linen, ideas or national glory and dignity : and he dared say . that the asso: elation of ideas rested on no very Metaphysical principles. If this flag had been torn -down by the Chinese and a little soiled in the encounter—(oh)--it probably could be washed again—(oh, oh)---at all events, the constituents of the hotz, member for the West Riding could turn out a new one. (11 ! , uewed cries of " Oh.") This flag, which hon. gentlemen opposite sneered at —(vehement shouts of " Ne")—brave and noble men had nailed to the mast, and rather gone down with it in the depths of the ocean than endure the ignominy of hauling it down in the face of an enemy : and they did wisely and worthily, for those emblems and symbols mere emblems and symbols though they were—of the power and duty of a nation, had themselves a power and an influence over tti• human mind, and in proportion as we guarded and respected them se would they- be guard e d and respected b y o w n people. (Cheers.) Mr. S. WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. GIBSON understood that the two resolutions had been put from the chair as one but the original manuscript which was handed in by his - hon. friend when ho gave his notice seps, rated the motion into two, with the figures "r and "2" pre fixed ; whilst the word " - resolutions," not " resolution " was written at the top. It was clear, therefore, thattit was the intention of his hon. friend to submit his motion in two dis tinct propositions; and he hoped that, as it did not appear on the paper in the fox:m in which it was handed in, the housi would consent to its being altered and submitted in the fe!:na in which it was intended by his hon. friend. The SPEAKER said there could be no doubt that it leap the original intention of the hon. member° for the w o o Ridiag to put in two resolutions, though by some naistalia of the printer they appeared on the paper as one. The house would remember, however, that when the hon. member eat down after addressing the house, he did not make any mo tion ; he (the Speaker) was, therefore, left to infer thal,h a meant to move what he found on the paper, and there beeog no distinction by number of the two res o lutions, and not be. ing interrupted by the hon. member w he n reading t h ou; he certainly put them as one. Of co urse, if th e house saw no objection, they could still be s e p arated ; bu t the motion for bthoeadjournmwenitthodfulthrmedebate and the original motion m u st first be Mr. COBDEN said his intention was, undoubtedly, to move the resolutions separately, and he was utterly at a use more eia loss to conceive how the mistake had arisen. He thought directions ought to be given the printer to dealing with the manuscripts that were put into his hinds, for he observed that a penc i il mark had b een run through the figure ~ 2, , ' and the wor d ' resolutions" converted into ties s i n gular from the plural. L or d PALMERSTON apprehen ded the hou se cou ld no t reasonably object to allow th e hon , member to move his reso lution in the manner he had origin all y intended—but he must say that he rather incumbent i upon the hon. thought it ii•as gentleman to have looked at the votes and seen w h et he r his notice was printed in the ma to the house. (H ear. ) R nner he proposed to submit the member who had a •ad he exercised that care which ev er y motion to make and just hear whether the sho uldnaturally ' exercise, not, the mistake would ha ve itons wer e properly pat or avoided, He was sure, however, the house would • oppo thetion to the change , not be disposed to offer any t chair • but allow the resolution to be put front in the manner the h tended. on. gentleman said he first in- The .motion for adjourning the debate and the original mo tion were then withdrawn, the chair. and the first resolution put from theOn • motion of Mr..WARREN, the debate was then ad journed. , . • Mr. ROEBUCK—To what day I Lard PALMERSTON--To this day. (Hear, heir.) The • Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was then passed through committee ; and The house adjourned at twenty minutes past twelve. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun OffiC4, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the county of Aliddlemex, Friday, February 27, ]657. ~.