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

they pursued was such Were legally right, the policy as ought to have been followed in the circumstances in which they stood. With respect to the question of law, he entered on it with a great deal of diffidence. Great authorities bad pronounced against the view which he humbly took. Great names had been quoted in that house against it, and it was with all humility that amen ought to feel in such circumstances that he ventured to state his opinion ; but at the same time he thought it right to say that, giving all due weight to those great legal authorities, the opinion he bad formed was ere which he held without much hesitation. Ile thought it could be demonstrated from the• proceedings before them that there was no true ground for saying that any prin ciple of international law bad been transgressed by the authorities at Hong Kone. He was anxious to get the house out of the region of generalities which surrounded the subject, because he believed it would be found that the only safe way in which the legal question could be sifted was to deal with it in connection with the facts as they had taken place in China ; for a good many of the general propositions which had been laid down might be more or less true, while they had no application to the fasts out of which the whole question had arisen. The facts were shortly these :—After the treaty of 1842, and down to 1355, a 1 irge population had grown up in the colony of Hong Kong, and when those proceedings com menced there were about 00,000 Chinese in the colony. He did not say they had ceased to be subjects of China, or had lost their allegiance, but they were living under our law and under our protection. In virtue of the powers -which he had as the colonial Governor, Sir John Bow ring all iwed those Chinese to become possessed of Crown lands in the colony. He did not say that was naturali sation to the fullest extent, but it was a step towards it, and was in accordance with law. (Hear, bear.) A civil war broke out in China, and there existed a great deal of smuggling along the coast. For the double pur pose of knowing to whom the coasting vessels belonged, and enabling them to attack with more effect the smuts gling-trade, an ordinance was passed in March, 1855, under which any Chinese holding property in Cro wnlands in Hong Kong who chose to apply might, on certain con ditions, have theirvessels registered, and be entitled to use the British flag. Was that ordinance a dead letter ? Was it a thing done in a corner ? Or was it unknown to the Chinese? In point of fact, larches were registered by hundreds, and it became notorious that the coasting trade of China was almost exclusively carried on by these lorchas sailing under the British flag. In Sept., 1355, the Chinese seized four lorchas bearing the British flag ; Sir J. Bo'rering remonstrated, and pointed out to them that by the treaty they were not entitled to seize those vessels. Ou that occasion the Chinese made no complaint a' out the treaty ; they never pretended they were igno rant of it, for, indeed, a copy of it was sent to them, and without the least remonstrance the lorchas were restored. (Hear ) It was a principle of international law that if a nation was in possession of and exercised an alleged right which had not been disputed, whatever the merits or grounds of that right might be, the nation was en titled to continue in possession of it without interrup tion till a remonstrance was made against it. That was an elementary principle of international law laid down by Grotius and all the great authorities. (Hear.) In such a case no country was justified in taking the law into its own bands. They were bound in the first in stance to remonstrate, and if remonstrance failed, then they might act To take an example :--There was an island near Bushire that formerly belonged to the French. We hart lately landed troops there, and supposing they were to remain for two years, that might give us no right to it ; but still the French would not be entitled, without first remonstrating, to take steps for the reco very of the island, or to land a body of troops for that purpose. A nation in such a case was entitled to main• taro its position until steps had been taken to show that it was wrong. How could the affairs of nations be car ried on on any other principle than that ? (Hear.) Of course, if the element of bad faith were once admitted the arguinent did not apply, for against a fraud there always existed a right to a remedy, but if the nation acted in good faith, then no violence could be proceeded with in the first instance to interrupt its possession. If, therefore, he did not care to stop and inquire to what extent we might or might not have had power to license these lorchas, the cause must be obvious. These lorchas were licensed for the benefit of the Chinese themselves (ironical cheers)—and a proof of this was that the licene:s were very extensively used. (Hear.) They were employed in order to enable us more effectually to put down smug gling on the coast, and that we might be able to distin guish. between those who were licensed traders and those who were smugglers. But, whether that were so or net, it was plain that the Chinese never imagined the 'ordinance was against them, for they allowed the sys tem to go on for two years and a-half without remon strance. (Hear, hear.) But what were the objections that had been stated ? And here he must say that mat ters had been confounded which were entirely and es sentially different. One objection was that no country was entitled to grant such licence to the ship of another nation ; and another was that the ordinance of 1855 went entirely in the face of our own municipal law. Now, the second of these objections appeared to him to have nothing to do with the question. The Chi nese had nothing whatever to do with our municipal law. If the ordinance was justified by the law of na tions, it was clear that they could have no right to say they objected to it because they had a repugnance to our Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. Was there to be no force in the orders of our colonial Governments so far as regarded foreign nations, unless the latter were first satisfied upon every question of law that might arise upon them in this country ? (Hear.) How many ques tions might not in this way be raised ? The appointment of the governor of Hong Kong himself might be liable to objection. There might be irregularity in sending him out, and they might question his powers. So also of many other matters. He contended, therefore, that the Chinese bad nothing whatever to do with the passing of the Mer chant Act. But the question had been put on another ground that was perfectly intelligible. It was ar gued that it was impossible to give privileges to foreign vessels as against their own country. That was tantamount to saying that it was impossible to regis ter a vessel owned by a foreigner. Now, it was of course lawful for a nation to register a ship in any form it pleased ; but it was said that, granting the possession of a register, the vessel could not b e c a ll e d a B r iti s h vesse l , because he owner owed allegiance to another country. Was that correct, even as regarded our own practice ? In the existing Merchant Shipping Act it was enacted that not only natural born subjects of this country might be the owners of registered vessels, but persons born in other countries might also, provided they had letters of naturali sation, and took the oath of allegiance. (Cheers from the Opposition.) But did the taking of the oath of allegiance to the British Sovereign prevent them from remaining un der allegiance to their native countries? If the Chinese of Hong Kong took the oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria, did they cease to be Chinese subjects? Hon. gentlemen opposite declared exactly the reverse, and he said the same. The question of letters of naturalisation wan raised the other day, when it appeared that, although a man might be naturalised here, that did not release him from his allegiance to the country in which he was born. But if we registered a ship under our Merchant Shipping Act, and a British merchant chartered it and took a British crew, would we allow our flag to be pulled down by any nation in the world under the pretence that the original owner was a foreigner ? (Hear, hear.) When we once registered a vessel and used it as a British vessel, would we not protect it against all the world ? Suppose that when we were engaged in hostilities with Russia a neutral Power had fired upon our flag, under the pre t( xt that the owner of the vessel was original y a native of that country, would we have put up with that insult or permitted it to go ui redre sed ? Certainly not. The true principle was, that it lay with Britain to say what a British ship should be—that it belonged to each coun try to say to what kind of vessel:its authority should be given. If any other country thought it had a right to complain it had the power of remonstrance ; but, in the first instanc - 4, it lay with Britain to say what should and what should not be entitled to the protection of her flag. (Hear.) The enforcement of that principle was a boon, not an injury to the Chinese themselves. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition). Re repeated that the facts of these lorchas carrying a British flag, so far from being against the interests of the Chinese, was, on the contrary, a protection to the Chinese and to our selves against the pirates and smugglers who infested those seas. (Hear, hear.) Such was the view he was inclined to take of the international question, and it ap peared to him that the first ground was conclusive— viz., that when we were found in the undisputed exer cise of a right for a series of years the Chinese were not entitled to take the law into their own ham's. (Hear.) That being the state of matterz, the Arrow, with the British flag flying, came into the waters of Canton, wag boarded by a party of Chinese officials—evidevtiy not by accident or chance, but in a mauler which showed that their proceedings had been precon certed—and the crew were carried off. The first question was —was that justifiable by the lex of nations, on the pretence that our Government had no power to pass the ordinance? Looking at the position in which matters stood, and the use which had been made of the ordi nance without rem onstrance or question, he s a id th a t the Chinese were bo und in the first instance to make a representation to the British author' p ,spaiuntgedthtbee l o tt r e d sif their ground °faction was that they deputed legality of the re gister or our power of inence. But the real question lay here —was that proceeding b e ld on the part of the Chinese in good faith or not ?It be difficult for the house to settle that question fromwtohhpinapeseersm;ibc,hutt while on the one hand the conduct of the be immaterial if proceeding from accident or mistake' it became on the other most important if proved the result of intention or design. If the British flag v ja , flyin they knew the bet, and they also knew that t h e vesse l was sailing under British authority. Under these cir cummances their course was simple. Cc ntul Parkes was living on the spot, an d, i n stead of sendin g. w as theirtw o mandarins to carry off the crew at once, t duty t o a pply t o hi m , i n order to ascertain whether_ th e vessel was rea lly un d e r British protection. Why did they n o t d o t h at ? W as i t t h a t n o remonstrance W had been made before ? Not in the least. There had been a remonstrance in the previous September on the same subject, and that remonstrance had been successful. Was it that they were ignorant of what the vessel was ? He rather thought not. (Hear, hear.) He thoug ht there were plain i n di cat i ons in the correspondenc3 that they knew the history of the vessel. He had no doubt that their proceedings were no mistake at all. They knew perfectly well the circumstances in which the vessel was ; their proceedings were designed, and were taken for the purpose of showing that they did not in tend to rec yniee the British flag under such circum stances. If th -y were not bound to recognise the British flag, they were at least bound to say so. Talk of civi lised nations f Any civilised nation, if it disputed a right which wo had been exercising for a long time, would in the first instance remonstrate with our repre sentatives. No civilised nation would issue proclama tions offering a reward for the heads of its adversaries. (Hear, hear.) China was not entitled to be put in the category of nations with which it was possible to deal . , , '74 THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAI( EVENINP, FEIVRIJAR,IT 28, 1857. according to strict international law. Ho now came to a part of the case, which he thought had called forth re marks a great deal too strong—he meant the letters ie which Sir J. Bowring referred to the fact of the expiry of the register. He should assume for the present that the view ho hid stated of international law was correct. But it turned out that the register of the Arrow, having been granted in October, 1855, had expired about a week before the seizure by the Chinese officers. Sir J. Bow ring wrote a letter, in which he stated that— " The question presents two important inquiries —first, the right of the vessel in question, and second, the conduct of the Chinese authorities. It appears, on examination, that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag; the licence to do so expired ou the 27th of Sept., from which period she has not beau entitled to protection. You will send back the register to be delivered to the Colonial-office. But the Chinese bad no knowledge of the expiry of the licence, nor do they profess that they had any other ground for interference than the supposition that the owner is not a British subject. That, however, is a question for this Government, who granted the re g ister, and it is clear that the Chinese authoriti es h ave violated the 9th article of the supplementary treaty, which requires that all Chinese m 1- faisants in British ships shall be claimed through the Bri tish authorities." The honourable member for the West Riding had used very strong language in regard to this letter, calling it " the most flagitious public document" that he ever saw. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He did not know that he was wise in trying to stem the torrent of indignation which the remarks of the honourable member had ex cited against the letter. Perhaps, being a lawyer, he might be accused of sharp practice ; but, having read the letter carefully, having formed an impression re garding it entirely different from that of the honour able member for the West Riding, and believing that what it meant to say did not savour of duplicity, or secrecy, or false dealing, but amounted to the simple as sertion of a very pertinent truth, he should be ashamed of himself if he declined to state frankly what his impre-- sion of the letter was. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Bowring said that, "the Chinese had no knowledge of the expiry of the licence, nor did they profess that they had any other ground for interference than the supposition that the owner was not a British subject." Did that mean, " Don't tell the Chinese—don't let them know how good a case they have—it is lucky they were not aware that legally we had no means of resisting them ?" Not at all. Sir J. Bowring meant to say that when the Chinese boarded the Arrow and tore down our flag they in tended to insult us—(ironical cheers from the Opposition) —and that it made no difference as far as the insult was concerned, whether the register bad expired or not. (Cries of " Oh, oh !" and cheers) Would any hon ourable and learned member venture to say that it was not a principle of international law that if a man committed an outrage upon another without a kno s ledge of facts which might justify it he was liable to reprisals as if those facts had no existence ? Take the case which he put a while ago. Ho believed that in America there was some limitation to the period within which a vessel could carry a national flag. When the Chinese fired upon the American ships, believing them to be American ships, with the American ensign flying at the masthead, could we imagine our high-spirited brethren on the other side of the Atlantic would have forborne to make immediate reprisals if it had been alleged that, unknown to the Chinese, the liberty of carryiag the American flag had expired ? (Hear, hear.) Was that to be the rule of those who represented Britain abroad ? Were they to stop before they re sented an insult, in order to discover a ground which those insulting them could never have discovered ? The very essence of an insult consisted in the animus of the person who offered it, and he was perfectly ready to adopt Sir J. Bowring's opinion, that it made no differ ence as to the course to be followed in demanding re dress for the insult that the licence of the lorcha had expired if the Chinese had been intent upon insulting the British flag. He quite agreed too with Sir J. Bow ring, that it rested with the, Government which had granted the register to determine whether or not the register remained in force ; and if the vessel were bona fide returning to her port where the register might be renewed, but owing to a stress of weather were detained, s 3 that the Fcence expired in the interval, it was for the Government to decide whether she was still entitled to be regarded as a registered vessel. That, was Sir J. Bowring's view, and he said, " The Chinese did nut know at the time that the licence had expired, and if they had known it it was a matterfor our consideration, and not for theirs." Thus stood the case, and although ' it was easy to say that it was a matter of small moment, that we were making a mountain of a molehill, and that we were going to war about a trumpery lorcha, yet, if there was a deliberate insult offered to the British flag, what ought Sir J. Bowring to have done? No doubt, the fact of the expiry of the license placed him in a difficulty, because it enabled the Chinese authorities, who had acted upon totally different grounds, to raise a quibble on the point, but he (the Lord-Advocate) contended that great latitude was to be allowed under such circumstances to those who were on the spot, and he could not forget that while people in this country were discussing the conduct of our plenipotentiary abroad that conduct had met with the approbation of every person, not a Chinese, All• was upon the spot. It had been approved by the British admiral, by the French admiral, and by the Ame ricans. If the French and the Americans thought that we had been precipitate they would have said so ; but the fact was, that there was no one who was cognisant of the proceedings as they arose who did not regard the steps which our representatives had taken as perfectly justifi able. Moreover, there was scarcely a man who had a practicel knowledge of the subject, and who had been in China and knew the Chinese, who would say that S'r J. Bowring had acted wrongly. (Oh !) He believed that those who were connected with the China interest were all but unanimous in that view, and he did not think that such a general concurrence of opinion could have arisen if there was not something inure important in the times and circumstances of the affair than the mere se.z ing of a lorcha. Ths noble lord the member for London stated on the previous evening that tle Government, in their despatches, had expressed no feeling of sorrow or regret for the bloodshed that had taken place. He did not think that any such expression was necessary. It was impossible for any one to view without regret the bombardment of such a town as Canton, but he did not see that it was requisite to give utterance to the senti ment. If the Government believed that the British re presentative had acted properly, it was their duty to support him publicly, and not to condemn him either with unjust suspicion or faint praise. He did not say that every person would have acted precisely as Sir J. Bowring had done in the matter ; but the moment was one of great trial, requiring promptitude and decision of action, and he contended that down to the period of the seizing upon the lorcha there was nothing in the con duct of our representatives which the house could condemn. This brought him to the second part of the case—did we adopt unreasonable measures upon the seizing of the lorcha I No doubt the seizing of a lorcha was a small beginning for a great war ; but every one was aware that, in dealing with Orientals, it was a most dan gerous thing to neglect small beginnings, and that if we submitted to trifling injuries and insults more important ones would follow before long. Above all things, unless we showed a jealous sensitiveness of anything that was intended as an insult it would he impossible to keep our footing there. Upon this point he should read one sen tence from the work of M. Hue on the Chinese Empire, who, writing dispassionately upon the subject, said : " We have observed elsewhere that the Chinese, and es pecially the mandarins, are strong against the weak and weak against the strong. To domineer over and crush all around them is the object they constantly have in view, and to attain it they have an inexhaustible resource In their native cunning and pliability of character. Once allow them to get the upper hand, and it is all over with you ; but if you can only succeed in mastering them, you will find them ever after as docile and manageable as children. You may turn and twist them which way you will ; but beware of showing yourself weak with them for a moment, for they must be ruled with an iron hand. The Chinese mandarins aro pretty much like their own long bamboos. If one can but manage to get hold of them i u th e r i g ht way, they are easily bent double and kept so ; but if for a second you let go, they are up again in a moment as straight as ever." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It was quite manifest, then, that it was impossible to measure the magnitude of the issue by the apparent smallness of the commencement ; and this was not the first war in the East wllich had had its origin in small beginnings. He remembered a war which did not turn out of very long duration, but which was very glorious, as wars were called, which brought great honour to those who conducted it, and a great accession of territory to this country—he alluded to the late war in Burmab, which owed its origin to a loss of 9001. which had been sustained by a Bri tish merchant. A noble lord in another place, having commented upon the trifling nature of the circumstance which Lad given rise to that war, was thus answered by the Earl of Derby in 1853 : " Ho bad no hesitation in entering into an examinaCea of the representations. which his noble friend the Governor General had seat home of the necessity of his first proceed inffs in sanctioning the course which he felt it necessary to adopt, and in coming to the conclusion that, reluctantly as he had been compelled to undertake hostile operations against Ave, the amount of insult, if not the extent of the individual injury done to British subjects, was such that, if it were felt necessary to maintain the prestige of tho Bri tish character in India, and to guard ourselves from future insult and injury, they must not be allowed to pass unnoticed and unredressed. His noble frien t had stated very truly that this was not the first offence which had been offered by the Burmese. It was not because a loss had been sustained by a British merchant to the extent of 9001. that we had been compelled to demand of the Governor of Rangoon first, and of the King of Ave afterwards, a thorough in demnification and reparation for the insult and injury which had been inflicted upon a British subject; but it was because, from the year 1826, a succession of insults and encroachments had gradually deprived us of all the bene fits which had rasulted from the last war with Bormah, and driven our Minister from the post which he had been directed to hold, had gradually deprived us of all the pri vileges to which we wore entitled, and had succeeded iii thwarting the operations of our commerce—because each successive insult had been tamely acquiesced in, perhaps e fr o o e m ti e n h e e c a es e s tl it e y e , e b .e y ie t h l . i e e f G th over i n e m iti e r n i t es o a f u t d he in c e la u y lt; w it h w ie a h s h t a n d e to pass them over. Without o d n isc th u e ss at length made it incumbent Governor-General this particular case, he did not hesitate to say, that when the th papers assertion produced t hey y as the Governor-General had had recourse to hostilities, it was impossible for him to have avoided them, an d havina entered vigorgusly erw n er p d o % them, that, them it was necessary to carry ,fin said Lord Derby on the Burmese war. (Cheers.) He (the Lord Advocate) did notatand thefreiotookjustifyt the th o wari which we had undertaken undera u hcir i c l u o m n s . t g a e n n c t e l s ne , - i n p c t o h n yv te h n i d ch ed ea fo c r h the cas necessity surrounded. o ea red to be quite enamoured and enc h anted with i bute facts be w e p Chinese composition. No doubt in composition they excelled, an d, if they were only as trustworthy in nego tiation and as true in action as the y wer e elegant in penmanship, our relations with them would be m uc h more agreeable than they were ; but while they were all honey upon paper they were quite the opposite in action, for all the time Commissioner Yeh was writing plausible despatches to Sir John Bowring, he was exciting his I own populace against the British in order to provide a pretence for refusing to admit our ambassador. It was impossible to judge from their writings, then, how such persons should be dealt with. (Hear, hear.) It must be remembered that the Chinese Government was At the same time arrogant and weak, and that very weakness much increased the difficulty of dealing with it. Commissioner Yeh admitted the fact, and although no doubt he had exaggerated the difficulty of dealing with the people under his control, still unquestionably some difficulty did exist. As an instance of the e eakness of the Government Commissioner Keying in 1844 said : —" We cannot let you into Canton just now because the people are much excited against you, but wait two years and then you will be entitled to admission." There was no doubt, therefore, that the imperial commissioners had some difficulty to contend against in governing the Chi ' nese people, but in dealing with nations of that deec:ip tion, nations which *era not always able to fulfil their obligations, it was necessary to take advantage of fa vourable opportunities for enforcing their fulfilment. Some persons might think that when the men who had been seized on board the Arrow were sent back the mat ter might have been allowed to end there. (Loud cries of "Hoar, hear.") That was of course a matter of opi nion —("hear, hear," and laughter)—but it was to be considered whether or no the opportunity was a favour able one for enforcing the fulfilment of the treaty of 1849. The mere return of the twelve men was no satis faction for the insult which had been offered, and there could be no doubt that they ought to have been sent back as publicly as they were taken away. If that had been accepted as a reparation, the Chinese would have at once said, "See these Englishmen, they are willing to put up with insult," and in all probability they would have added insults more grave. But then came the question, was it a proper opportunity for enforcing our right of admission into Canton—not free admission, but that reasonable opportunity for communication with the Chinese Government from want of which great difficul ties had arisen, and which waa permitted by all civilised nations ? They had admitted the ambassador from Siam and representatives of other Powers, but they refused the British plenipotentiary. The noble lord the member for London had stated that notice ought to have been given to them of our intention to enforce the provisions of the treaty ; but, it should be remembered, we were entitled 1 to enforce the observance of the treaty at any time, it had been made the subject of a correspondence, and in en forcing the right of a personal audience with the Chinese Minister Sir J. Bowring was only doing what he was allowed by treaty to do, and therefore he had not done anything to deserve the censure which it was now pro posed to pass upon his conduct. He had been driven to tre4pass longer than he had intended upon the patience of the house, but he besought the house to consider well what policy ought to be pursued. It must be remembered that the proceedings which were now being discussed had taken place two months ago; and was any one prepared to retrace the steps which had been taken ? He would venture to say that whatever might be the opinion of any man, no one, when he saw how much depended upon what had been done, would be prepared to retrace those steps. With interests so grave at stake it would be bet ter, and even more just, even if a false move had been made, to proceed rather than to go back. If ever there were anything on the score of justice or morality which the house deemed worthy of censure, they must remem ber the question of policy, and to retrograde now would be to raise up a barrier between the Chinese and the English more dangerous and difficult to pass than any which had yet existed, The house must recollect how important it was that the representatives of Great Bri tain throughout the world should have a firm hand, and allow no insult to the flag of Great Britain. The hon. member for the West Riding had spoken about the hor rors attending the bombardment of a town containing 2,000,000 inhabitants ; but be could not find in the papers before the house anything like the sufferings described, nor was he disposed to ascent Yeh's account of the mat ter as being strictly true. On the contrary, he thought that what was done, if it were necessary that it should be done, had been done in the most moderate manner. (Laughter and ironical cries of " Hear, hear I") From the dense population of China a war with that coun try must always be a horrible war, and therefore, cer tainly, care ought to. be taken how one was entered into. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") But, on the other hand, by not acting with readiness and prompti tude when the occasion called for the exercise of those qualities, calamities and horrors infinitely more horrible might be incurred hereafter. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE contended that the ordinance was altogether illegal, and that the acquiescence of the Chi nese wool .1 not make it legal. And if the right of issuing ord'ainces were legal, still as the licence in this case had expired, the British navy were not called upon to inter fere for its protection. He could but express his horror at the conduct of Sir John Bowring, who, knowing that the lorcha was not entitled to hoist the British flag, studiously concealed that fact from the Chinese. The Lord Advocate appealed to the fact that the foreign re sidents at Canton approved of the conduct of Sir John Bowring. But did those foreigners know, what Sir John Bowring knew, that the lorcha had no right to theßritish flag I Were they a ware that the licence had expired ? The Lord Advocate had also asked them to stand by' their agents. But would they stand by injustice? Would they stand by spoliation and blood ? Was it to be said that the Parliament, which put down music in the parks on Sunday, would tolerate such a glaring violation of the first principles of Christian morality ? If they did, he could only remind them that chief among the vices the Christian Book reprobated, was the sin of hypo crisy. Mr. HORSFALL was content to rest his opinion and the law of the case on the opinion of Lord Wens leydale. He defended the Liverpool Association from the attack made on it by ?Ir. Cobden, and pointed out to the house that that association did not urge on Lord Clarendon a new war, but only asked, if a new treaty were necessary, it would be desirable to insist on free ac- Can to all the rivers and ports of China. He ridiculed the modesty of the member for the West Riding, and re minded the house that Russia, which he was to crumple up like a piece of paper, had been found a pi ece o f ver y stiff paper. He concluded by refusing to vote for the motion, because it was in effect a vote of censure against the Governor, the Admiral, the Foreign Secretary, and the Government, and because, if it were carried, it would encourage the Chinese Government, and he (Hr. Horsfall) would not be answerable for British property or British life. Lord R. CECIL defended Mr. Cobden from Mr. Horsfall's attack ; and, with reference to the offer of reward for the heads of the English, he reminded the house that we had been repeatedly told we were not at war with China. If we were not, then our forces were acting as pirates on the Chinese coast, He would ask, if a set of pirates or buccaneers wera vexing our coasts would not we offer a reward for their heads He could not understand the argument that bad been so much used in this debate, that we must stand by our agents. That doctrine had already involved us in many troubles, and was likely to involve us in more. The character of England was tarnished by these pr )ceedlngi on the Continent, while in the East our conduct bad inspired the nations there with a horror of our approach. It was tune that this state of things should be ended. Sir C. NAPIER had so high an opinion of the mode ration, humanity, and discretion of Sir Michael Sey mour that he would not for a moment believe that that gallant officer would have fired one unnecessary shot against the Chinese. He was certain that fir Michael Seymour was conscientiously convinced that the Arrow was to all intents and purposes a British vessel. It was said that her licence was out, but ho could not under stand how that licence could have txpired until her re turn to the port from which she had sailed. It was said the Chinese did not know that the Arrow was a British, vessel. He did not care whether they knew it or not ; the British flag was flying and they hauled it down. What was de - manded I They were only asked to send back the men in the same public manner in whic'l they had taken them away, not to send them back in a sneaking trivet° way—and to wake on apology. Good God? Was there anything extraordinary in th at ? If a man had his hat struck off, or was knocked down, he was entitled to an apology. We had only asked for an apology, and that was refused by the Chinese Govern ment. When France wss at war with Mex i co the .FreLch Admiral in a hasty and improper manner went on board an English man of war and took the pilot out by force. He remembered perfectly well that the officer on the sta tion and the admiral were very ill thought of for not re senting this in a most positive manner. Had he (Sir C. Napier) been there he should have insisted upon Prince Joinville going on board the very mend war from which he had taken the pilot, and making a public apolo g y, and if he had not done so he must have taken the conse- 1 quences. Ile (Sir C Napier) would most certainly have sent him to England. In the pressnt case. supposing that Sir Michael Seymour, knowing that the English flag had been hauled down and insulted, had taken no ns,tice of the matter, would not the papers have been full of the insult, and would not Admiral Seymour have been Be vels ly condemned for not avenging it ? lion, gentlemen on both sides of the house would have said that he had not done his duty, that he had no spirit, and ought to be recalled ; and he (Sir C. Napier) verily believed that he would have been recalled. They blamed Sir J. Bowring, but they did not blame Sir M. Seymour; but if Sir J. Bowring was to blame, Sir M. Seymour was also to blame. (" No.") The commander-in-chief was bound to use his own discretion, and if he thought Sir J. B.)w ring was doing wrong it was his duty to refuse to obey any orders from him. It might have been better to have seized a war junk, and keptit until reparation wee made, but there was no war junk there, and if Sir M. Seymour had pocketed the affront the Chinese authorities and the authorities of other nations would have said, " What a mean-spirited man this British officer is. He has seen the British flag hauled down before his face, and he has not the courage and resolution to resent it." They roust regret that the lives of innocent people should have been sacrificed, though there did not appear to have been much loss of life in this unfortunate affair ; but if there had been loss of life it was the f au lt o f the Chinese Com missioner. He must again repeat that he knew Sir M. Seymour to be so just, so humane, and so discreet an offi cer that he was quite certain he never westld have gone to the extent he had it he cou'd ro sibly h .ve vindicated the honour of his country in any other way. (Cheers.) Lord GODERICH supported the resolution expressly on the ground that it was a vote of censure against Sir J. Bowring, upon whom he believed the whole guilt of these proceedings ought to be cast. He had a high re spect fer the honour of his country's flag, and tiser,fore he could not bear to see it tarnished. Mr. BENTINCR was ready to agree to the resolution as an abstract proposition. but he had reason to believe that the consequence of the houee affirming it would be to complicate matters in China still more than they were at present, and would endanger British life and property in China. On that ground, therefore he must decline to support the resolution. But he had another motive. He was most anxious to see a purely Ccouseryative Go vernmetst in power, but he would never while he bell a 1 seat in the house vote for a resolution which by remov ing the present Government would make way for the Conservatives, in conjunction with tht , sc right hon. gen tLmen who had been concerned in the anti-PretestArit and democratic movements (the Peelites and AlancheAer men) of the last few years. Admiral BERKELEY (te whom Sir J. Graha'm gave way by order of tie Speaker, after some noisy calls from both sides of the house), deprecated the coloured account put forward to the house by the hon. baronet oppo site (Sir Thomas Herbert) of the conduct c f an absent servant of the Crown, and whose proceedings he (Admiral Berkeley) felt called upon to vindicate. Sir M. Seymour had never fired a shut until his captain had been ashore to endeavour to make peace. If the opinion were to gain ground that admirals were never to fight until they got instructions from home, they had far bet ter be kept at home until they are wanted. If ever there was a man fitted to command it was Sir M. Sey mour. He was not only a great commander but a good Christian. The gallant admiral had been charged with refusing to light on a Sunday, and he (Admiral Berke ley) certainly felt that that was not a day for fighting, but that was not his only reason. He delayed purposely in order to give the Chinese another day to consider. Lord St. Vincent used to say, First try your ambassador, and when your ambassador fails, call in your admiral. That was the course adopted on that occasion, and he be lieved that the gallant admiral was fully justified by the circumstances in all he did. Sir J. GRAHAM said that he should have given a silent vote but for a duty that he felt he owed to an ab sent friend. The gallant admiral (Sir M. Seymour), whom ha had the honour to know and number amongst his friends, was one of the most humane and discreet officers in her Majesty's service, and a better selection for the command of the war in China could not have been made. He would also add that no man could be more certainly influenced by motives of humanity than Admi ral Seymour. The right hon. gentleman who last spoke said that when the ambassador failed the admiral was to be appealed to, but there were great ,difficulties upon that point. There was the difficulty of the question of law, of the question of policy, and as a question of hu manity and religion. But then there was further the question, how far an admiral was to be considered sub servient to a civil officer, whose judgment was perhaps by no means superior to his own. His (Sir J. Graham's) own belief was, that there should be no doubt whatever about the quarter where the power was really vested. He also thought that the admiral ought to be considered ministerial in cases of that sort, and that the civil offi cer should be considered as the representative of the Crown. The responsibility of the civil servant who gave the order for war was very great, but how much greater was that of the Government who delegated the authority for that purpose to a civil officer unaccustomed to war fare, and very probably having but little knowledge of it. With regard to Sir J. Bowring, he, with many other members of that assembly, had had the opportunity of knowing him, and watching his character and conduct. He would, therefore, make no hesitation in stating his candid opinion of Sir J. Bowring. Ho believed he was a man who would suddenly form very strong opinions upon very slight impulses, and that he was more remarkable for self-confidence than for the soundness of his judgment. There was grave responsibility in appointing him our re presentative in China, but having appointed him, the Go vernment must of course uphold him, and identify them selves with all he had done and with his reasons for do ing it. But, nevertheless, it was not right to press too hardly upon the representative of the Government in China ; for if Sir J. Bowring had erred, it was by no means clear that be did not believe he was giving effect to the wishes of the Government. Upon the question of law he should not venture to say much. He had waited anxiouly to hear the opinion of some law officer of the Crown, not only upon the question of international law, but the law bearing on this particular case. It would be presumptuous in him to express any opinion upon that subject, where so much doubt existed even amongst the greatest authorities. It was clear that the question of the Arrow was of mere pretext, for, assuming that the Chinese had erred, surely the smallest reparation for such an error might easily have been accepted. Surely on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth fora tooth, a junk was a good reparation for a lorcha, Not so Sir J. Bow ring. He was bent on obtaining a triumph that all his predecessors had failed to obtain, upon the question of access to the city of Canton. He was bent on being re ceived into that city amid admiring hundreds of thousands, surrounded by all the pomp and circumstance of a public triumph, a hundred tom-toms accompanying him. (A. laugh.) So some of the concessions offered to him were accepted. This disputed point of the right of entrde was to be a matter of triumph with a view, as he considered, of promoting English interests. This question had occu pied the attention of four or five Secretaries of State in succession, and each had come to the conclusion thatthis treaty should not be enforced without authority from England. The Government of Lord John Russell had positively prohibited any attempt to enforce that condi tion. The Government of Lord Derby had been as posi tive. He therefore was of opinion that Sir John Bowring, feeling himself bound to carry this point, had reason to think that the moment had arrived when, consistently with principles laid down in England, be might venture upon this business. The last despatch in 1849, written by the noble lord, was not so peiceful in its spirit as any of the preceding letters on the subject. He foetid in that despatch these words :—" The Itritish Government well knows that if occasion requires a British mil tary force would be able to destroy the town of Canton, and not leaFei one single house standing,. and could thus inflict the most signal chastisement on the people of that city." He expressed his amazement that after the avowed order of the Government in the Russian war that defenceless cities should be spared, such a course as bombarding Can. ton should have been spoken of in terms of approbation. This was a course which he said ough.: to be arrested. He had hoard with pleasure that there had been a protest against it in Canton by Russell and Co. There had also been a protest against it in this house by Russell and Co.—(a laugh)—which would be remembered in its an nals when the miseralla squabble of the lorcha had been forgotten. He thought the resolution of the hon. gentle man the member fur the West Riding temperate, mea sured, and moderate in its terms, and therefore wor thy of support. He could not for a moment hesitate between that resolution, and being a party to the ap probation given to the proceedings at Canton. The division to which they were about to come would be ,regarded with immense interest by the people of this country. He thought that " Russell and Co." would be held to be subject to very limited responsibility. He thought the responsibility of that vote was near at hand, and that every member in that house would be called upon to account for that vote. (Hear.) But whatever might be the question with regard to any human tribu nal, he believed that the conduct of the Government whether regarded as a question of law, as a question of policy, as a matter of humanity, or more solemnly in re ference to their Christian principles—he believed it to be utterly indefensible, and he never gave a vote with a more clear conscientious conviction of its propriety than in voting for the motion of the hon. member for the West Riding. (Loud cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the question before the house had been debated upon the principle of humanity, of justice, and of policy, and in his opinion the first and most important consideration in dealing with it was, whether what had taken place in reference to the war in which we were engaged with Chi na was or was not consistent . ith justice ? In entering upon that question he must beg very respectf u ll y to state that he differed from those opinions which had been delivered with so much eloquence by noble and lerrned lords in another plac i upon a previous evening. Of those opi nions he would present to the house a short analysis, for great as was his raepect for the assembly which he had the honour to address, yet he could not compare its de liberations, in connection with the subject under discus sion, or the arguments which had been advanced by its members, with those which had elsewherebeen delivered. If he could only satisfactorily answer the arguments which had been urged elsewhere he thought he should not have failed i n di s p os i ng o f those wbich had been ad vanced in the House of Commons. (Hear.) The argu ments to which he alluded were, in the first place, that the colonial ordinance upon which the validity of the register of the Arrow was said to depend was at variance with the Imperial statute, and in consequence of no value whatsoever ; secondly, that even on the supposition that the co l on i a l reg i s t er was valid, that of the Arrow had expired, and had been no longer of legal effect ; and thirdly, that even if it were granted that the colonial ordinance was of force, it could not exempt the Arrow, bein g Chi no - e property, f rom th e authority and jurisdiction of the Emperor of China. .Now, he was desirous to l a y b e f ore the house t h at which he con ceived to be in reality the law in reference to those three prop isitions ; and he might, before proceeding to do so, be permitted to remark that in hie opinion the whole question had been put upon an erroneous basis, when the title of the Arrow to the character of a British vessel was based on the validity or non-validity of the col ,vial ordinance—a circumstance which in point of fact was wholly immaterial to the d :cision at a hich they ought t• arrive. The title of the Arrow to the designation of a British vessel rested upon the supplementary treaty which had been entered into between this country and China in the year 1842, and he must say that be thought a noble and learned lord, who had spoken in another place, had based his argument upon a totally wrong foot ing in stating that the vessel in question, if she had been in the Thames, might under circumstances such as those which had occurred at Canton, been visited by the au thorities of this country, and that any offender against our municipal law who might happen to have been on board, neieht be seized and taken away. The noble and learned lord might have known that but for the treaty of 1842, the Arrow, or :lay other ship in the river of Can ton would, in accordance with the principles of general international law, have been liable to be visited by the Chinese authorities, but th at t h e supp l ementary treaty, which must in the p resent else enter into the argu ment, described exactly the class of vessels to which the Arrow belonged -_a class of ves:els which by sti puletions made between England and China were, for the purpose or local and coa t ng commerce to receive a special protection and, as it were, to be naturalised. The words of the 17:h article of the treaty were, "That every British schooner or lorcha shall have sail ing orders prepared and registered in Chinese and Eng lish under the Feel and iienatura of the Chief Superin tendent of Trade," See. Now every lorcha which received such a register was by the very tenor of the treaty con verted into a British lorcha. (Cries of "No, no.") Yes; such a vessel would be entitled to the privileges set forth in the treaty. The colonial or di nance was nothing but a municipal regulation, which for municipal purposes had been superadded to the general international low. A contract for such purposes had been entered into be, tween England and China, as set forth in the very terms of the treaty ; and if the Arrow had complied with the terms of that contract she must be said to have been with :n the meaning of the treaty. Now whatever was a British vessel within that meaning could not, properly speaking, be boarded by the Chinese authorities without a violation of contract, and was fully entitled to the pro tection of the British consul. Bat it had been urged that the sailing licence of the Arrow had not been in conformity with the colonial ordinance. He, howevcr, must say, with great Submission to the noble and learned lord by whom that statement had been made—and be said so with the more confidence because be was for iu his opinion by the authority of one who was better versed in the principles of international law than, pet haps, any other man in England—he must say that the colonial ordinance, being a matter of international la ', could not be revoked by the Chinese, and that the only thing to be appealed to was the language of the treaty. Before he discussed the language of the treaty, how ever, it was desirable that the house should understand what was meant in the Imperial statute:3 by the turn "British ship." (Hear.) That term, in the sense in which it appeared in the statutes in question, bad been introduced into our law in the old Navigation and Registration Acts, and meant, not ships belonging to British subjects, but such vessels as were entitled to the privileges and advantages which had been by the Navigation Acts, and was now by the Merchant Shipping Acts, secured to certain ships coming within peculiar conditions, There were ships manned by foreigners which did not fulfil any of the conditions of the statute, but which were still British merchant ships, inasmuch as they were the property of British subjects. Now the words "British ships" were plainly used in the supplementary treaty, not in the sense given to them in the Imperial statute, but in the general sense of vessels belonging to British subjects. He used the term "British subjects," not in the sense of British natural-born subjects, but as representing persons resi dent within the British dominions, and it was in that , sense only that the words "British merchant ships' were to be interpreted in the treaty of 1842. Now it was abundantly pisin from the 17th article of that treaty, that if the Arrow answered certain conditions she was for all the purposes of the treaty entitled to the protec tion which by the treaty was guaranteed to a British ship. These conditions she did answer, and he might remark that it was a great mistake to suppose that erste nial registration was forbidden by the Imperial legisla ture. An imperial register, which entitled a ship to certain general privileges had reference to its sailing throughout the world, but the colonial register, as it was called, was a thing limited to the coasts of China, , imposing restrictions on vessels engaged in the coasting trade as well as conferring privileges in order to prevent smuggling. Those colonial registers were wholly inde pendent of the Imperial register, and only gave the ves sels limited privileges. It was not competent to the Chinese authorities to deny any vessel which bad received a re gister from Hong-Kong the character of a British ves sel. Consequently, all the arguments they had heard about the expiry of the license was a, matter about which the Chinese bad no concern at all and were not entitled to avail themselves of. Re would, in the next place, consider the point dwelt upon with so much gravity by the venerable and noble lord in the other house (Lord Lyndhurst). It was extraordinary, but perfectly true, that he could frank all the propositions for which that nobleman contended but leave the real. point of this case untouched, and found upon the same proposition another argument totally consistent with it to show that the Chinese were in the wrong. It was true they could not convert a subject of one country into the subject of another as against his own sovereign. He had himself frequently had to enforce that principle. The Alien Act, for instance, enabled them to grant general letters of naturalisation to men of every nation, but it did not destroy the rights of the sovereign of the parti cular country to the allegiance of its subjects. But that was not the point. Nobody said that the Chinese owner of the vessel was not answerable to his own sovereign. The present inquiry was limited to whether a natural born subject of China becoming a resident at Hong Kong, aid so becoming in that sense a British colonial subject, they might not make him owner of a ship and give him a register, by means of which, although he himself would not be released from his allegiance to the Emperor of China, the ship itself would have the immunity conferred by the treaty. (Hear.) It was a singular thing this case, on which so much reasoning had been exhausted, had actually been decided in this country in our law courts, and the proposition was known to almost every writer on international law. Mr. Wheaton's book had been cited with reference to a caee in which a proposition had been made to the authorities of this country which exactly bore out the principle that he contended for. The proposition was laid down there, and deduced, not only from writers on international law, but decided that the subject of another country cannot put off his national character and so put an end to his natural al legiance as not to be answerable for acts done against his own sovereign ; but that he might, by adoption or natu ralisation, enjoy all the privileges of another country ; and a question had arisen in our courts. By laws for merly passed British subjects were prohibited from engag ing in certain trades ; but when they went to America they were allowed to engage in them, and the case of " Marshall and Dutton" had been decided on that prin ciple, the ruling being that the parties who contended for the right were entitled to all the privileges conferred upon the United States traders. The question came before the Court of Error, and it was remarkable the noble and learned lord was not aware of the answer given to the reasoning of counsel on that which was a similar point to it, whether a native of China could not, by residing in Hong-Kong, become a British subject sufficiently to con fer upon a ship that he was owner of the privilege under the treaty. Lord Stowell and other learned judges had decided that a person residing in Stockholm, naturalised, and owner of a ship, Was nut entitled to claim fur that vessel the privilege granted to the vessel of a Swedish subject (hear, from the opposition); but that decision was deliberately overruled by the whole of the judges in the Exchequer Chamber, who held that a foreigner going to another country, and becoming domiciled there, might become the the owner of a ship of that country, so as to enable him to avail himself in his own native country of all the privileges affuried to that ship. (Cheers.) It was said that this particular Chinese was sought to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of his sove reign. It was perfe c tly t rue th at i n a cr i m i nal sense he could not be so withdrawn, but by national law and municipal law a native of one country could reside in another, and possess privileges other than those posses. sed by his own countrymen, though he never could dis solve his natural allegiance to his sovereign. If the case were argued before the noble and learned lord, he would admit, undoubtedly, that the proposition he (the Attor ney General) contended for was correct. They forgot that they had by the Merchant Shipping Act assumed the right to do this, and said that a British ship might be owned by a naturalised subject ; and if the arguments of the other side were wrong, that act would have been incapable of being maintained according to the law of nations. The whole thing, therefore, turned upon the law. The argument elsewhere, conducted as it was with learning, talent, elevation, and dignity, was ad dressed to him in vain, for, first, it was contended that the whole matter depended upon the colonial ordinance, was not forbidden by the Imperial acts of Parliament, and that they could not consider that a ship belonging to a native of China was a British vessel. Those were the arguments used in the other house, but he was sure that a calm perusal of the acts of Parliament would not support the propositions contended for there. (Cheers.) Was it not surprising, nay, humiliating even to hon. and right hoe, gentlemen who were always . so eager to protect their absent friends—(a laugh) —that they should denounce Sir John Bowring on a point on which Lord Lyndhurst was opposed to Lord Wensley dale, and Lord St. Leopards and the Lord Chancellor were directly contrary in their opinions ? Was it sur prising that he should be protected by his friends here for being ignorant on this subject, because, believing that, he considered himself bound to protect the lorcha in question and to enforce the treaty. It was said that the Government here should not have endorsed the ' error of Sir J. Bowring. Sir J. Bowring having sent all the despatches home, what was the duty of Lord Cl tren don ? The constitution of the country had provided the Foreign Office with a proper legal adviser, selected for his abilities and made a permanent officer. Lord Cla rendon laid all the papers before the Queen's Advocate, a gentlemen of great ability, who was selected by Lord Derby's Government, in order to obtain his advice ; the opinion of the Queen's Advocate was convoyed in 'the despatch of the 10th of December, and poor Sir I. Bowling, who had been held up to reproach by those who had assumed the right to criticise his conduct, and had been crutliy attacked by his former familiar acquaintances, expressed in his letter the very opinioa expressed by the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, who said correctly :—" The expiration of the Arrow's sailing license on September 27, previous to her seizure does not appear to have been known to the Chinese authorities, and this again, as a matter of British regula tion, could not justify tee Chinese." He (the Attorney. General) had not the honour of any acquaintance with. Sir J. Bowring, but had seen many of his despatezics, and thought him disposed greatly' to " Celestialities"—(a laugh)—to maintain the just rights of China. It Was said that Sir J. Bowring wanted to gratify his ambition at the expense of the Chinese, and yet he bad maintained their rights in the ease of Stianghae, and he wrote dis patohes in their behalf. What was the proper meaning of Sir J. Bowring's latter, that the Chinese did not know of the expiration of the licence ? It was this—that the question was as to the ex;etence of a malus anitnus in the Chinese. If the Chinese had no mens rcei they would have said that they haantered the vessel, believing it to be Chinese. This was what was meant by Sir J. Bowring —i.e., that it was a mere afterthought on the part of the Chinese that the vessel was not a British ship. The "familiar acquaintance" of Sir J. Bowring might have hit upon this easy and obvious explanation. That which had followed bad been a just retribution upon wanton insolence and outrage on the part of the Chinese. Sir J. Bowring thought that this was the spirit of the Chinese, and he (the Attorney-General) believed that be had been right. He had caught the Chinese Sagrante delicto. He had invited the Chinese to surrender their prisocers, but was refused and resisted. This man Yell had been made remarkable for cruelty, and tried to put himself at the head of a frantic populace and encourage brut d ou rage. Humanity itself required prompt and decisive measures, rather than to submit to a course of insults which would have resultedin a war like the last. It was idle to talk of humanity in war, (Oh !) He meant that though the harshness of war might be mitigated, it must ever remain cruel in its nature. The extent of the operation a had been controlled' by the gallant Admiral Seymour , whose character bad b een up h eld even by the tight hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham). This, then, was the case; and what remained to be said ? He had tried to argue the legal question calmly, and to lay t Ogre the I ouse all the „materials for a just judgment. It was a mistake to suppose (he had ommitted to say) that there could be no British ship not registered. The law on that sul ject was other wise stated by "Abbott on ehipping,"page 83. A ship might be legally owned by a British subject though not registered, nor a British ship within the navi gation laws, He wished further to remark on the re spect due to the British flag altogether apart from the question of legality or of registry. There was a differ ence between a ship having originally obtained papers (bona fide) which had expired, and a slip which had I originally obtained the papers by fraud. On that point he referred to the authority of Lord Stowell in a case in " Rcbinson'e Admiralty Reports." So it had been decided that a ship sailing under the colours of a nation is clothed with its character. Such was the case of the Arrow. It carried the British colours, and the Chinese should have treated her as a British vessel, and carried any complaint to the consul. The 14th article of the supple mental treaty showed how this was understood. It was a wise stipulation that any interferencewith the flag of either country should he by means of the authorities of such country. Those, then, who had denied the national pro tection due to the Arrow were mistaken ; and he asked if any member could conscientiously declare that Sir J. Bowring had been guilty of acting on a conscious error. (Ministerial cheers.) No man could honestly say that, and no man who could not say so could vote for this mo tion. (Ministerial cheers.) Dr. PHILLTMORE rase to move the adjournment of the debate. Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, considering that the subject has undergone so much discussion I could be willing to come to a decision tc-night. (Hear, hear.) Unless the Government very much desire to continue the debate, therefore, I should desire to divide. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and cries for a division.) Mr. R. PHILLIMORE said, that if it was the wish of the house, he would withdraw his motion. Lord PALMERSTON said—As far as we are con cerned we are quite ready to do whatever the house may think fit ; but as there are many other bon, members — (hear, hear)— who are anxious to express their sentiments upon a subject of such considerable importance, it is not, I think, unreasonable that we should agree to the mo tion for an adjournment of the discussion, Cries of " adjourn " from the Ministerial side of the house, and " divide " from the Opposition.) The question was then put, and the debate was ad• journed until Monday. The remaining orders of the day were postponed, and the house adjourned at 25 minutes past 12 o'clock. PARLIA EIV TA itY DI VISION. HOUSE OF LORDS.—FEB. 26. WAR WITH CHINA. The following Peers voted against the Earl of Derby' resolutions : PRESENT. H.R.H. Duke of Fingall. Broughton. Cambridge. Granville. Camoys. Lord Chancellor. ligrrowby. Carew. Archbishop of Can- Kingston. Carington. terbury. Munster. Cremorne. DUKES. Scarborough. Do Tabley. Argyll. Spencer. Dacro. Norfolk. Shelburn. Dufferin. Wellington. St. Germains. Foley. MARQUISES. Shaftesbury, Glenelg. Ailesbury. Yarborough. Hatherton. Abercorn. VISCOUNTS. Leigh. Breadalbano. Enfibld. Lilford. Camden. Falkland. Methuen. Clanricarde. Sydney. Mostyn. Townshend. Torrington. Overstone. EARLS. Abingdon. Airlie. Albemarle. Bessborough. Burlington. Camperdown. Chichester.• Clarendon. Cork. Ducie. Bisnors. Panmuro. Bath and Wells. Rivers. Carlisle. Saye and Sole. Gloucester. Staffirrd. London. Stanley of Alderley, Manchester. Truro. BARONS. Talbot de Malahide. Aveland. Vivian. Arundel. Wrottesley. Belper. Wensleydale. Biron. PROXIES. Kintora. Crewe. Lindsey. Churchill. Leicester. Dunfermline. Meath. Dorchester. Morley. Denman. Ripon. ' Erskine. Rosebery. Gardner. Stair. Howard de Walden, Waldegrave. Harris. Zetland. Ho wden. Viscomir. Keane. Masserene. Kinnaird. Blsuors. Lovat. Down. Lyons. Durham. Londesborough. Hereford. Monson. Lichfield. Manners. Peterborough. Portman. St. Asaph. Petra. Winchester. Rossmore. Worcester. Sudeley. Balms. Seaton. DUKES. Devonshire. • Leeds. Leinster. Marlborough. Roxburgh. MARQUISES. lleadfort. Londonderry. Northampton. Sligo. Westminster. EARLS. Amherst. C.I rlisle. Co ttenham. Denbigh. Devon. Errol. Effingham. Essex. Fit zhardingo. Fortescue. Glasgow. Gosford. Granard. Kenmaro. Alvauley. Ashburton. Belhaven. Brougham. Cowley. Stuart de Denies. Vernon. Ward. Wharncliffe. Wodehouse. PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. This committee met again on Thursday ; Mr. Labou chore in the chair. Sir George Simpson was the first and only witness called, his examination lasting through the whole sitting. He said ho held the post of governor of the territory for the Hudson's Bay Company fur the period of 37 years. There was no fixed seat of government, but there was a seat of council. His authority extended over the whole of the company's territory. The nature of the authority of the council was merely as advisers, and to vote upon such questions as were brought before them. The council could outvote the governor, but it had never been so. He had tra velled through the greater part of the country forming the territory of the company. His impressions of the capa bilities of the soil or climate as regarded Rupert's Land were that it was not adapted for settlement or cultivation. He applied the same remark to the country of the Red River ; they were occasionally obliged to import wheat from Canada. He also applied the same remark to the land wet of t'ie Rocky Mountains. By Mr. Gladstone—He spoke of Rupert's Land as dating in regard to boundaries as laid down in the charter. Speaking of the whole of Rupert's Land, he would draw a distinction as to climate ; the north being much more vigorous than the south. There was no part of the terri tory having a mild climate. Barley very seldom ripened, and was very small in yield. He did not think settle ment had an influence upon climate, even when the coun try was densely populated. Vancouver's Island he con sidered more favourably situated for settlement than the company's territory. By. Mr. Gordon—He considered that a description given of the country in a book which be had published was too favourable ; he had overrated the capabilities of the country. By Mr. Grogan—The occasions on which they had to import wheat from Canada were exceptional ; that neces sity arose from the country being entirely flooded and the crops destroyed ; but in ordinary years the quantity of grain grown in the company's territory was not su ffi c i ent f or the consumption of the natives. There were but 8,003 acres of land under cultivation in the neighbourhood of the Red River settlement. By Mr. Adderley—The present population of the Red River territory was about 8,000. The settlement had been established over 40 years. There was much difference of climate between Minosota and the Red River settlement. By Mr. Ellice—At the Red River settlement the company kept two years' supply of grain on hand for fear of the crops being destroyed by floods. There were hundreds and hundreds of miles of water across the country when the floods came. The company did establish a model farm at Red River settlement, and they did all they could to pro mote agriculture ; they had also imported the very best breeds of cattle to be had. He did not think the Ameri cans were rapidly making settlements towards the Red River as had been stated by a previous witness. By the Chairman —The company employed 60 chief fac tors, 9 chief raters, 5 surgeons, 87 clerks, 67 postmasters, 1,200 permanent servants. In the trading season the com pany gave employment to about 3,000 persons altogether ; that included labouring Indians. He calculated the total number of Indians in Ruport's Land to be 42,84's That calculation was made this fast season. The country to the east of the Rocky Mountains contained, he considered, 12,700 inhabitants, and that to the west about 8,000. The whole amount of Indian population wir,hin the territory of the Hudson' Bay Company, including Vancouver's Island, he considered to b 3 about 139,000. He thought the popu lation (Indian) generally had decreased of late years, owing to wars among themselves and the small-pox. The mode of admi n i s t er i ng j ustice was as near l y as possible - simil ar t o ,that of England. In reply to questions by different members, the witness proceeded to state that the Indian settlement of the lied River was approved of and encouraged by the company, In the company's territory, there were 19 missionary sta tions of the Established Church, 12 of Roman Catholics, 4of Wesleyans, and lof Presbyterians. There was also a Roman Catholic mission on the St. Lawrence, another at Albany, and another at Fort William. The company paid the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rupert's Land a salary of 3001. a-year ; they also gave him 1001. a-year in aid of schools, besides stipends to chaplains at different stations. With regard to the executive power of the company's ter ritory it comprised ono governor and a co unc il of 16 chief factors. In the Red River settlement the recorder was governor of the district; ho had executive power as well as judicial. The rest of the territ or y was governed by the witness himself. The tenure of land was by lease for 999 year'. The directors in London had no legislative power as regarded their territory, but they had the supervision of acts. If a person wished to go out and settle in the terri tory he could get land at ss. an acre, payable to the com pany, and would have to pay no other charge. The corn pany's servants going out from England were engaged for only five years; but six out of eight of them remain for 20 or 30 years, and many of them become settlers and remain for life. The pay of a labourer going out from England used to be 171., but it was now 201. a-year • from being common labourers m any o f them become boatmen' and fishermen, and get from 301. to 40/. a-year. The 16 chief factors were partners in the trade of the company. The laws under which the settlement cf the Red River was go verned were printed ; the new laws were p os t e d upon the church doo rs ; they had no newspaper in the country. He believed the settlers would be perfectly well satisfied with the existing state of things in the settlement but for agi tators,, who had an eye to the trade ; but agitators come from without, not from within the settlement. The ave rage time b e t ween goods bought by the company i n Lon don and delivered in some parts of the settlement was as long as seven y ears ; th e m i n i mum wou ld be between three and four years—th a t i s , h e mean t th e period elapsing _be ; tween the goods b e i ng sen t f rom England and the time here in when the d irec t ors i n L on d on receivedtheLmeonndeeyn fer such goods. The governor an d coni pa ti Y appoint the governor of the territory, and37 he w Ha ( witness), though governor for years, resided servant, Ha the officetohretehe had been only 19 o ases America, During th e greaterpio period o p f a h r i t s o tenure t o i m f e in N that, e crime of th e according t o hi s on of tu notaadmi adjournedfini s e d knowledge, oof murder in w a t s h the fsaeitrtlreemp representation t d i settlement. when the committee rose Sir at Geof.olSwimj,) o w : o n o k h , until 'Rhonda. CRYSTAL PALACE. —ONE SHILLING DAY.—p r id ay, Feb. 27.—Admissions on payment, 649 ; ditto, by sta sun tickets', 269 total, 918. INCENDIARY FIRE NEAR PONTEFRACT.---Seven grain and straw stacks, standing in a field on the Darrington• road, Pontefract, the property of Messrs. Moxon, we re on Sunday morning last destroy ed by fire, The stacks wore all burning timultaneously. 2 Naval and Military Intelligence. The court, of inquiry ordered by the General Command ing-in-Chief on tho charges preferred by Colonel Shirley, against General Beatson, at the urgent demand of the gat-' lrnt general, has comtnenced proceedings at the late offices of the Army Works Corps, in Whitehall-yoU . The board of officers is presided over by Lieut.-General Sir Colin Campbell, G.C.B. - A few days shim the 34th Regiment, stationed in Edin burgh Castle, were drawn up before the house of their colonel, General Sir T. M. Brisbane, in Charlotte-square, there to give exprossion to their gratitude for his unwearied efforts to promote the moral and material welfare of the regiment. The General came out to receive the regiment, and, after alluding to its servicesin the Crimea and various parts of the globe, said he had coreananded it for 30 years, and no complaints had ever been brought to him against any individual in it. The sentence of the gancral court-martial held at Wool wich for the trial of Pay-Sergeant W. Girven on the 18th and I`lth inst. has been promulgated. The prisoner having been found guilty of both the charges of which be was ac cused, as previously stated in The Sun, was publicly re duced on parade to the station of a private, and ordered to be placed under stoppages until the amount of public money which he embezzled be made good. The Iris, 26, sailing frigate, Capt. Loring, arrived at Spithead on Thursday to await orders. She proceeds to the relief of the Juno on the Australian station. The Nimrod, 6, now screw despatch gun-vessel, having received Commander Roderick Dew and the other officers and men from the Flying Fish, and having been swung for the adjustment of her compasses, went to Spitbead yester day. The Bulldog, 6, paddle-wheel sloop,Commander Gordon, went into Portsmouth harbour yesterday afternoon to be paid off. The Prussian frigate Thetis, 40, CapWn Snndewal, was docked yesterday at Portsmouth, to obtain a thorough refit. Extensive preparations are in progress in order to expo• dite the construction of the 2G heavy gun steam corvette Galatea in Woolwich dockyard. A number of the frames are got together, and are ready to be laid dow*. The shed from which the Scout was launched a few weeks ago is being considerably extended beyond its former space, as the prescribed length of the Galatea, 330 feet, will exceed that of any ship hitherto built at Woolwich. A vessel of similar dimensions, to be named the Ariadne, was recently commenced in Deptford dockyard, and is intended to carry 32 lighter ordnance, and to be fitted with a screw and engines of 800-horse power. The freight-ship Northfieet has sailed from Woolwich, laden with 1,200 tons of ordnance and war stores for Hong Kong. The screw steam-frigate Shannon, 51, Captain William Peel, sailed from Plymouth on Wednesday for Lisbon. In consequence of the special application of Captain Peel to the Lords of the Admiralty, this frigate has had two of her boats fitted at Devonport with Mr. Clifford's new ap paratus, and previous to her departure they were both tested. The larboard quarter cutter, with 15 bands, and the second cutter, with 20 hands, were lowered in a few seconds when the ship was under full steam. The crew of the paddlewheel steam vessel Vixen, 2, Com mander Mecham, were paid wages at Devonport on Wed. nesday, preparatory to her sailing for South Australia. The newly erected boring mills and shell foundry in Woolwich Arsenal have received a considerable portion of the machinery, and are being furnished on an improved scale. The following appointments have been made at the Admiralty : Lieutenant W. A. Brownlow, to the Royal Albert, for disposal ; George Powys, midshipman, to tho Devastation ; William Parsons and G. T. l!eleild, midshipmen, to the Sanspareil. Country Markets. LIVERPOOL-FEB. 27. At this morning's market we had a very fair attendance of buyers, but their operations were rather restricted. Holders required late prices for wheat ; on American and Canadian flour, however, a reduction of 3d to 6d per barrel was sub• mitted to. Egyptian beans were rather dearer. Barley. oats, and oatmeal were unchanged in value. Indian corn was not lower in price, excepting soft-conditioned parcels on board ship, which were forced at 6d per qr. reduction. WAKEFIELD-FIB. 27. There was no change in wheat, with the exception that fine dry, in some instances, sold for is in advance. Good English barley was rather dearer. Other sorts were difficult to sell. Beans were fully as dear. Oats and shelling were slow of sale. EXETER-FEB. 27. CORN.—Wheat, 7s 6(1 to 7s 9d ; barley, 5s Od to Os; grinding do., Oe Od to Os Od. Oats, 38 Od to 38 2d. Beans, Os Od to 0 Od. Peas, 00s Od to 00s Od. FLOUR.—Fine, 42s Od to 41s Od ; seconds, 403 0d to 428 Od per sack. CATTLE. —There was a small supply of bullocks. Bess beef, from 103 6d to lls per score ; inferior, 9s 6d to 10s per score ; fat calves, —d to Od per lb ; barrenners, Oa Od to Os Od. per score ; cows and calves, 121. to 161. us ; butchers' calves, Od to 7d per lb., rearin2 calves —s to s each. sheep, ewes and lambs. 01. Os to 01. Os per couple; ewes. 701 to Od; wethers, 8d; lambs, —to Od per lb. rigs* large size, —s to —s ; second size, —s to —s ; slips, —0 to —s ; suckers, —s to —s. Rough fat, 4id per lb. Pork carcases from 9s 9d to 10s 9d per score. BRISTOL - SUGAR-FEE. 27. The market has been rather quiet this week, and the only sale reported is a cargo of 3,200 boxes Havannah for arrival, and for which former prices have been obtained. Refiner? produce still meets with a good demand, especially for all fine and middling qualities, and prices are fully as dear; hut pieces and treacle arc rather dull of s do. In rum we are without transactions to report, the recent arrivals not being yet ready for the market. COAL MARK. Prim of Coal per ton at ET.—FEB. 27. the close of the mar zet. I Witllsend, &a. s. d: Bebside's Hartley 14 6 Longridge's Wst Hartley 14 C North Percy Hartley l3 0 Walker Primrose l3 0 ranfield Moor l3 3 Wallsend, &c. Penshor 15 € Harton Ships at market... 3 d. F'ramwellgate lB 0 loom Close l5 3 Eden Main l6 3 -laswell 18 0 Elengh Hall 15 9 &cline 16 9 South Keno° 16 J Sold 3O COURSE OF EXCRANGE.—YESTERDAY. tmsterdam ............ 11 16 Gibraltar .... •. •• —•• •• Ditto, three months .. 11 18% Leghorn ....•• ........ 29 45 Rotterdam ............ 11 18% Genoa ... 25 75 Antwerp .............. 25 50 Milan ................ Brussels .............. 25 50 Venice................ Hamburgh ............ 13 8% Naples . ...... ~ ... 43% Altona .. •• • ... •• •• •• • • Palermo .• • • Paris ............ • • .... 25 27% Messina .... ....... ... 130 Ditto, three months .. 25 70 ' Lisbon ... ... 51% Marseilles ......• •.•• •• 25 70 ; Oporto • . ••••••• •• • • • •• 62 Bourdeaux ............ •1 Rio Janeiro ..... . —.• --0 Fr ankfort-on- Maine •• .. 119% ; Buenos Ayres •• ' Berlin .............". New York,6o days' sight -- Vienna .......... • • .... 10 29 Philadelphia .......... Trieste.. • • .... • • ...... 10 30 palm or soutori, PSI OZ. Petersburg ............ 37% Foreign Gold In Bars £3 17 9 Madrid ••••• • • ...... 49% Portugal Gold Coin .. 00 0 Cadiz ... • • .... • • ...." 49% Mexican Dollars .... 0 0 0 Barcelona .. I •• •• •• •• .. New Dollars •• •• •• 0 0 0 5evi11e...... .......... Silver in bars ...... 0 5 1% LOCAL SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, FEB. 27. -- - STOCK EXCHANGE.—There was an a d van ce in p r i ce s, an d a fair busines s was d one , quo t a ti ons c l os i ng as f o ll ows South Eastern, 23g i—Caledoni an , 34 a —Midland, 84i 5-- London land North Western, 1034 g —Eastern Cou n ti es, 10i Lancashire and Yorkshire, 101 i—Man c h es t er, Sheffield, and Lincoln, 37i —North British, H —Black'i burn, 6 per cent., 231—Bank of Liverpool, 21. MANCHESTER, FEB. 27. - STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market is active, and very firm. Cheshire Junction, 704—Blackburn, 8 1'—Sheffield, 37 Counties, 1 0 1 Ditto, Prof., 124—Leeds, 101.1--Easteni Midlands, 85—Dover, 23 11 -16—London Stock, 106 Great Western, 621—L ancaster and Preston i shares, 22 p. Preston and Wyre, Pref., No. 2,71 i. BIRMINGHAM, FEB. 27. STOCK EXCHANGE. This market continues steady to-day. Great Westerns closed at 68 4 z d.—London and North Westerns, 106 i I—Midlands, 82i 83 z d.—Bir tuingham Canal, 92.4 3—Birmingham Gas, buyers, 138— Birmingham New Union Mill shares were done at 31. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Jane Hallett, of Whitty Head, near Netberbury, Dorset, suffered for many years from a bad leg. From the knee to the ancle it had several wounds, so that she was unable to stand or move about the house. She tried a variety of means and applies. tions, but without obtaining a cure. By the blessing of God and using only three pots of Poor Man's Friend, and taking three bo xes of pi { l she was perfectly cur e d. Dr. Roberts's P o o r M an ' s F r i en d, for wounds and erup. tions of every d escr ipti on , i s sold in pots, ls. lid. and 2s. 91. each. His Pilule Antiscrophulre, for all i tn . 4 pt i t . ri 6 t o u f ia t ., he aa b d loo 2 d 2 , s. is elltinbyboaxlel medicine vendorss, ls. lid., 2 s . 9J., throughout the United Kingdom. LB I R T II S. OF A SOX. instt"at 1, Alfred Villas, Enfield -road, at Cheddington Rectory, Lady Emma eld-road, Kings land, Mrs. Willi 'am Henu Dowsett. OF A DAUGHTER. On the 27th inst., at Tring-park Cu o O st n n . , Herts, the wife of the R ev . J ame s Williams. On the 26th inst., at 3, Bedford - row, Clapham-rise, the thee 2 2 6 6 t t h h ins -, wife o f J. P. Lafrentz, Esq. MARRIED. On the 24 th ite., at Taunton Lieutenant-Colonel Evan Morgan, of St. Helen's, Swans i a, ' to Maria Rodney, d aug ht er of the late Admiral Will throp. On the 24th inst., at Brighton, Francis Stedman Ashby, of Eling, near Southampton to Elizabeth Rebecca Jupp, the eldest Cobham, dau Surreyghter of Henry J upp, Esq„ of Chestnut-lodge, . a On the 27th hist at Ha wke se, DIED. -hou of Alderma n Sidney", aged 49. Sunbury, Sarah, wife On Anna the r2ia6th inst., a t A ston House Tetsworth, Oxfordshire, 57. ,wife of Sir Henry John , a ged Lambert, Bart ., On the 20th inst , Mr. A. Bachh o ff ner, o f E verett- street , Russell -square, aged 41. On the 25th inst., at Peckham-ryo, Nicholas Skottowe, Es tu q., aged 67. On the 25th inst., at Gravesend, Capt a i n William Rogers, of the W est York Rifles, late 96th Regt., aged 33. On tho 26th inst., George James Edward Brown, Esq., of Tostock-place, Bury St. Edmund's, aged 34. On the 26th inst., at Cheltenham, Anne W. Duncan, wife of Major Hugh Mackenzie, r engal Army. On the 23d inst., Mr. John Sutton, of Forest-row, Dalston, late of Union-court, Old Broad-street, city, aged 80. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in thi county of Middlesex, Saturday, February 28, 107. c' •