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

the firms V's register was in order and that the license was' pea up, i tis beyond doubt that the Hong Kong government has no ewer to violate the statute law of the country by giving any such license. The Hong Kong legislature can not an' c contrary to our navigation act, and the register was nothing but waste paper, if it was all in order. (Hear.) I see the noble lord at the head of the Government taking notE s. (A laugh.) I wish him to note what I am now going t o sa y, and to answer a remark made by one of his cel los, gnes in another place. Lord Clarendon the other night used an argument which I think extremely fallacious. He sa ki the Hong Kong register could not give the imperial rights to the ship, but only the rights of a ship in China — that they could only give protection to a British ship in China. That is the place in which we say it cannot give protection. But how could the Hong Kong ordinance, irrespective of any authority from the Imperial Parliament, have any force in China. And 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 laugh)—will assert, contrary to the declaration of Lord Lyndhurst, that our conduct was lawful. (Hear.) Assumine, however, that the Chinese were strictly justified, it is said that they had an intention to insult us. What are the grounds for that supposition ? Let the house recollect the peculiar character of the trade carried on along the coast of China. It will to seen that it is not extraordinary that the Chinese should have boarded a vessel with British colours, even if it had those colours, which the Chinese deny. Why in those very papers Sir J. Bowring mentions a case in which two English vessels were seized for having smuggled cargoes, and by the treaty the Chinese bad a right to seize the cargoes but not the ships, which were restored. That shows that there are cases in which the Chinese have occasion to visit vessels with the English flag flying, and that such an act does not neces sarily show any disposition to insult our flag. Rut I have had a statement on this subject from an American gentle man— the United States marshal at Wharepoa, who his recently arrived in this country. He told me of cases in which English ships had been engaged in smuggling transac tions, and particularly mentioned ono case, which, at my request, ho 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 sulate from 10 to 15 lorchas engaged in smuggling, 8 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 ; and 12 mandarin boats, each containing 60 men, made 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 is 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 find 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." (Hear, hear.) Now this gentleman is himself against the Chinese, and is willing that they should suffer any horrors—(a laugh)—but he said to me " Yot have chosen the most unlucky ground for quarrel which you could possibly have taken, and you have not a leg to stand upon." (Hear, hear.) I heard with humi liation what this gentleman said, as to smuggling vessels being allowed to use the British flag ; and when I hear of the flag being insulted I say, it is these transactions which dishonour our flag. (Hear, bear.) This Amerioan gentleman roads me ashamed for my country when he said, " We do net 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 flag. A Chinese goes to Hong Kong, aid becomes a tenant of crown lands, or a partner with some one who is (and the Chinese are vary clever at their partnerships), and great friends to " limited liability ;" he then gets an English-looking ship, and engages some man calling him self an Englishman for the nominal captain. Any one who wears a round hat and European coat will do. (A laugh.) Ho is called the captain, but the real captain is a Chinaman; the owner is a Chinese, the crew aro Chinese ; the pretended captain is a " loose fish—(a laugh)—a run away apprentice, or a vagrant sailor ; he is allowed plenty of rum, and has nothing to do but drink ; and under cover of this pretence the vessel is allowed to carry an English flag. Such a system it is most disgraceful to us to sanc tion. (Hear.) And one of the good effects I hope to secure by a select committee is the devising of means to put an end to this system. (Hear.) The advantages acquired by means of the license are much greater facilities in smug gling, and protection in case of seizure, for if the vessel has a licence the cargo may be seized, but not the ship. The existence of such a system is the best reason to show that it cannot be assumed that it was intended by the Chinese to insult us, merely because they seized a vessel with the British colours flying, because they have constantly occa sion so to do. But look at the correspondence, and recol lect who are the parties who were corresponding,. Mr. Con sul Parkes (a clerk the other day)—a young man who one day may have discretion—(a laugh)—and Governor Yeh, viceroy of a province containing e 0,090,000 of inhabitants. Considering the character of the correspondence on the one side and the other, 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 oar side arrogance and pre sumption. (Heir.) But look at the circumstances of the correspondence, and remember the dates, without obser ving which its force will be lost. Thus, on Nov. 12 Gover nor Yeh writes, after Canton hal been bombarded, an d his own house destroyed and ravaged --he writes a letter, disclaiming all intention to insult, in these terms :—" The 12 men seized were all taken back by the assistant com missioner on the 22d October, but Consul Parkes then declined to receive them, or the despatch sent with them. He says that the Chinese authorities wore not accessible.' The assistant commissioner who was sent with the men is an officer commissioned by the Chinese Emperor, and it is through him that the foreign correspondence with me has always been conducted." But Consul Parkes had made up his mind not t., assent to whet was proposed. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") On a sub sequent occasion ha insisted on something more than the return of the men. There being no inaccessibility on the part of the Chinese anthorities,what made an immediate ad justment impossible? Yet on the 23d, 21th, tied 25th, the different forts of the city were destroyed, an 1 from the 27th October to the 15th Nov., a cannonade was kept up, by which numbers of dwelling-houses were consumed and great loss of life occasioned. Now, considering the terms of that letter, and the circumstances under which it was written, it is a proof that tho writer had no desire to pro voke, but to conciliate those to whom it was addres=ed. (Hear.) It is very striking how, through the whole corres pondence, Governor Yeh constantly harps on this—that the lorcha was not a British vessel. ( Hear, hear.) There are eight letters at least in which that is reiterated. (Hear.) His language urn that point is so terse, clear, and logical, thatit might have been used by Lord Lyndhurst— " The whole question amounts to this, .that a lorcha built by Chinese purchases a British flag—that does not make her a British vessel. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") All Westminster Hall could not put the case more clearly. And what is so remarkable is thi', that throughout the corres pondence the British authorities neverrefer to or refute this simple point. (Hear.) And though we may have heard the Lord Chancellor talking of everything else but that, and though we may hear the Attorney General ore long talk of everything else —(a ►augh) —we shall not find any lawyer with a character to lose, or who aspires to the seat of the Chancellor —(a laugh) —who will venture to declare in explicit language, that the principle laid down by Governor Yeh is wrong. (Hear, hear.) He writes in another letter thus :---" I have always understood that a foreign flag is peculiar to a particular nation ; and therefore cannot see how a foreign nation can sell its flag to Chinese. (Hear, hear.) I am not aware that foreign nations have such a law." (Hear, hear ) "Had the flag bona fide belonged to a Etitish merchant vessel it would have been proper to follow another course ; hut the Chinese having fraudulently assumed the flag, why should Consul Parkes put himself forward as their advo cate" (Laughter, and loud cries of "Hear, hear.") " Because he wanted a pretext to make war !" (Loud cries of " Hear, hear" from all parts of the house.) Sir (said the hon. member 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 design to pick a quarrel with the Chinese, a n d that the re ha s been more encouragement given to that design than the house are at ail aware of. (Hear.) There was nothin g in the boarding of th e A rrow tend i ng to show that the Chinese meditated an insult to the British flag. Every one of these letters displayed a temper and forbearance and desire t.) conciliate, such as ought to put the assailants of the Chinese to the blush. But Lord Clarendon did not content himself with this transaction. lie said that for a low , time the Chinese authorities had been encroachine. ' on the rights of foreigners, and evincing a desir e to encroach on treaty rights. If such had been th e case it wastho th lu e t o y nt o r f our Government to have taken ear li er steps. oa howover, we Lad drifted on to a quarre l , in which we ha no ground to stand on at all. (Hear.) if what Lord Cla reedon had stated was true, why, in the name of common sense, sense, had not be or Lord Palmerston appli e d to vernments of America and France long ago, saying, w e are parties to the treaty, and let us all join in a joint ex postulation to Pekin?" (fl ews ) It was unstatesmanlike not to have redressed those grievances at the proper tim e . To promote this dirty quarrel was an act upon which all he world ought to cry shame. Ha denied, however, that ' what Lord Clarendon had stated was true. It appeared in the papers that since 1842 there were still most striking proofs that the authorities of China had manifested a sin cere and consistent desire to carry out the treaty. Why, he asked, was this correspondence 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-name of "Correspondence relating to In sults in China. (Laughter ) That correspondence was laid on the table in (odor to mystify. It contained no less than 255 and odd insults to the British Ile;—an amount of reading not suited to hon. gentlemen less voracious upon blue hooks than himself, and o n whi c h a pl a i n coun t r y gen tleman mightwell cry out " Mercy on us !" The extracts in this correspondence a period of tint were garbled. They ranged during pally to street rows. 1812 to 1816, and referred princi dentally shot down, A case in which a boy had been ncci ;yawl the 'Mad' consul had awarded flfiange.o(fl2o,o....d9a,rs, aaput down as an insult to the British laugh.) But while all this stress was laid on this recora ot complaints, gc,of legs, what bad beenn7:,:a:e disputes and misunderstand other p ar t s o f t h e world ? L e s hon, members n in turn their attentio n to what had taken p l ac e elsewhere. Why, this country had three times jeo par discd its relations with the 'United S tates on questions relating to a boundary line, to fisheries, and o nlisime fleet 113,1 been go t in readiness at Spith'ea.l, to th p e r r o e v b i e d e e n f ( o le r ba th t eos yn )t o t t t at t oliflimnseetvoof.s )(; : zi , t ,t r i ti r o f i c i , s rc h e e s d withi descent of the Fro nch on our shores. We had time called out the militia. Again, four orfive empires kla been engaged in a moat bloody aid costly war with Itus,sife Front lal2 to all Europe had been in a s t ate of rev° eni ' ol lution. During trouhlos in FranceE workmen been banished to this country. If such things h a! pencil be tween nations pomessing the same habits if not the same langoage, might we not have had a little more toleration for the Chinese? Was i:3 it not an insult to their eOrniuoll • "d""tand in% to bring down such a blue book as this fur the Purpo se of making out a case for Lor 1 Clarendon ? The extracts were not, fairly given, as would appear from other extracts he bad in Lis ossession from the original papers. For instance, Major-Clnerd D'Aguilar, in a letter dated from Ifong-Kone, i n F t b 1817 a,d enclosed to Lord Palmerston by Si r J. Davis . , said that ho had been a great (!cal amongst the Chinsse, an,l had been treated with courtesy and civility—that everything depended on the Eng' h, :ld that a kind manzier towards the Chinese WAS the beat security ag,s.inst insult. (Hear.) Ho (Mr. Cob d la) had sometimes been aecusod of being hostile to the army and navy. lie bed friends in both services, and had come to 'he cenclusion that the bastfsi en •l of services was the veteran sol.:isr. (Hear.) In 1816 Si r J. Davis wri ting to tire governor, said that on a certain Monlay he bad been walking fur six hours abeut every part of Hong-bong ; that he had been treated with the greatest civility ; that he had passed through thestNets with as much convenience as if he had been in London, and be felt convinced that in any dissereerneat the Cliiee,:e would no; be found-to be the • aggressors. (Hear.) Our countrymen first adopted a i bullying tone, and trusted too much to protection after- 1 wards. The best protection, Sir J. Davis said, for Eng lish merchants was to be found in their own circumspect conduct, and by avoiding, rather than seeking, causes of 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 than 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 of 1 the honourable and beneficent career of the mercantile body. (Hear, hear,) Sir George Bonham, in alluding to the English merchants in China in 1847, said that some of the younger ones were in favour of breaking 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 and health-seeking, the Chinese laws limited them. He (Mr. Cobden) might desire to emancipate them from that duresse, but he 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—s traffic 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 be feared they merited the reflections of the gallant officer to whose letters be bad referred. He did not think it was to the benefit of English merchants that they should be 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.) Whilst our exports were declining they were more and more passing through the hands of foreigners, instead of Englishmen. (Hear, hear, bear.) 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, and 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 eil'th Romanus suns. That motto might prove a guard to our footsteps ; but "Civis Rornanunt 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 Chien. Association of Liverpool had put forward a very modest request in connection with our trade at Chins. These modest gentlemen considered the present disruption of our trade with China as a proper opportunity for insisting on a revision of the Customs duties ; and they recommended an ad valorem duty 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 ho would advise his friends in Liverpool thus to apply it as soon as they could. (Hear, and laughter.) 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 the ports and rivers of China. (Laughter.) Suppose such a me morial had been addressed from Moscow to the Govern naent 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, he held, deserved reprobation. (Hear.) Contrasted with the tone of the extracts he had previously read, it was the language of downright selfish violence. (Hear.) It was unreasoning injustice thus to treat a great empire of 300,000,000 of people. But what advaptages did these gentlemen seek ? He only wished that France and Prussia offered us 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 Whampoa, which had discharged her cargo and taken in a cargo of tea in five days. 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 Sir R. Peel had observed that the fine harvest of that year and the news of the Chinese treaty had saved this country from fearful suffer. ing and disaster. Depend on it that hostilities with China, and the proposal to admit our vessels to all the rivers of China, would rather 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 ha I 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 offered the very heat 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. \Vhether that character was owing to their past communication rah the East India Company, or to their southern climate, he could not say, but he be lieved that both our plenipotentiaries and Lord Palmerston in 1817, 1848, and 1849, had urged this feeling of hostility as a reason why the British merchants should not be admit ted to Canton. Let it be remembered hero, that it isnotthe admission of merchants into Canton which my friend SirJ. Bowring (who, as Lord Derby says, is monomoniac 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 (Hr. Gregson) which appeared in the correspondence, having reference to Chinese importsb2ing paid for in opium. He could not understand what Sir John Bowring was fighting for ? Was it to get into Canton ? Why the governor bad undertaken to meet him at the packing house of the great tea merchant Howqua, and surely that might have sufficed for him. Ho went further, anti 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. What was really wanted by the English residents was free access to the interior of the country around Canton ; but he appre hended what the Chinese authorities said of the people in the neighbourhood was true, namsly—that they were fero cious and unruly, aid 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 e-- " 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 up arms, and for several days you have been firing shell, until you have burn d dwellings and destroyed people in untold nunibare. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be told bow many old people, infants, and females have left their homes 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 Canton that such a calamity should befall them ? Again, it has come to our knowledge that you aro insisting on official receptions within the city. This is doubtless with a view to amicable relations, but, when your only proceeding is to open a fire upon us which destroys the people, supposing that you were to obtain admission into the city, still the sons, brothers, and kindred of the people whom you have burned out and killed will be ready to lay down their lives to be avenged on your countrymen, nor will the authorities be able to prevenethem." (Hear.) He thought there was great good sense in that appeal. Again, Commissioner Yeb, in a letter which might have been penned by the late Duke of Wellington, it wan 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 poor wretches upon whom you ale inflicting such misery." It was roost desirable that Englishmen should address them selves to this consideration—were the nuthorities of China in gocd 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. There was a clear misap prehension that bemire) the treaty had not been carried out the rights of Englishmen ha 1 been violated. Now, he 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 continue 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 b 3 contradicted, he would ask, was it right that with a country with which England had treaties a-id alliances—was it right that our represen tative should b e a ll owe d t o carry on war w ith ou t instruc t y h g is entieli Government ? (Cheers.) That, however, much ßow r i b ug ett h e a r d th aaanedhe n was a p o i n t on which he did not intend to tou c h, as tha re were ins present who would deal with it c ,t o,u only , t. e Lye on m tr a a i r n y t maintained e t tl h that e e express p S r i e r s J a John Bowring sent out to him, but he had violated all sound Kung to Caortonaiwn. principles of internationall t .11 .11 ne teel,htandosfetahteup expressloo menfrom Hong Kee were not to be moved without direct g in junction sent out to him from Tire letters of Lord Malineee,ury, Lord ordersi 1 d Granville, twat h f a r o t m the an troops d L ,England.3r , Grey wore perfectly intelligible, peremp tory orders that 81r J. lt ; —owr,e4oolasned all giving not enter upon ag gressive weesures without having recourse t to England. He must say, however, he per ce i ve d ar tone of the correspondence between Stej. change e ng and in the Lord Clarendon as compared with w h a t it was r with - the Ministers that preceded the noble lord i n o ffi ce. Its emed to him that the moment Lord Clarendon c ame into office the check that had hitherto been upheld over our Pleni potentiary in China was withdrawn; in fact, from that moment we were dilfting into a war with China, precisely as wo did with RusTia. When they looked at the specific directions of Lord Malmesbury and Lord Granville, 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 even if he did get the country into a mess with China the news would not be unfavourably received at home. (Hear, hear.) lie gathered that the general im pression abroad was, that after what had been done by England, the merchants would in a body desert Canton never to return to it. But surely cur object ought not to be to tbstroy 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 I n'Pleee for a m omen t th a t F rance or A mer i ca wou ld t a k e the quarrel up on the miserable ground of the dispute I a w beut the Arrow. H e b e li eve d , at all events, that America no thing not. F or F rance he could not speak, knowing b ut her Government. But might not this war if i i e t e _Zu m i e i_nu mi e t lead to other complications with foreign ii w u it l A ,:ueriiag,hitwihtienioitbleaaidt ,rfeonr,aeraxabt,.=urpedle:ut.oascooluliyplications mention that alreadyn. protested twat they distance from Chi that Engle ,d was? Indeed, he might half the the house of Russell, of Canton, had responsible for thedwould e bold inflictedt the English E on n gli themsh Government v r e e r a nxii , f t been ntyrdioe,nt:xntw,iitihout notice. Well, but what mo„ especially the Friend of e rn sar that the Indian press, war havin did they propese which was always a great advocate for annexation ,called ''a m tett; .uponcheers), ir J a o n li d n B enterow - (rjrnr annexat i ons iu China ring to l p e l , : r lye ,e t r he of p c a o r n t g ef n a es e t l a i nvde e . vonld upon . . • ire of been done in India. Now, dial they think Am • as had acquiesce in that arrangement? Here was an er e lc m a p :;00.000,000 p e ople, and how did th e y propose to govern it? He thoit,;ht their wisest course, as a first st e p, would be to ued e is f their b i p l ai erip ote been : atr n 'e t a iday done. If th ey repudiated the actsry, as havin g acted without authority, they would then be free to unite with Fraaee and America in a joint representation t o be permitted internal intercourse with China. He hoped they should not bo told there, 39 had been said in another place by Lord Clarendon, that the Chinese were a barbar ous people, and that, therefore, force must be exercised over them. (Ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, he would tell them that it would be next to impossible to govern the Chinese by force—(hear)—and they would be disappointed if they tried to do so. But 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, and in morals before Socrates. As was well known, it was the Chinese who supplied the Romans with silks and other articles 2,000 years ago. 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, be something worthy of respect in such a people ; and if Englishmen spoke of them as barbarians, 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 hands of the British 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 cf the House of Commons; for those transactions most 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 be 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 bad 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 great European community —in the face of a great 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 gentleman's par don. Will he specify what I really said ? (Rear, hear.) Mr. L A BOUCHERE.—I r es ' • 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) had a very different opinion of English merchants in every quarter of the world, no matter where they were found. He had never himself been personally engaged in commerce, but the honour of the British merchant was dear to him from many associa tions. His family and connections had all been engaged in trade, and had formed a different estimate of the character of the British mere:ant 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 bad been said, the sym pathies of the French and American residents ha .t 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. But be 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 he would call the attention of the house to the document the more pointedly as it did not arrive in this country in time to be presented to Parliament with the papers previously delivered. Nothing could be more clear, more outspoken, than the language of the letter, which was dated Macao, the 27th of Dec., 1836, and from 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, &c., referring to the notice of the 9th inst., hereby makes known the reply of the Imperial commissioner to his excellency's dispatch of that date was re. ceivcd 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 stidulations, which for years has characterised the correspondence of Imperial commissioners still obtains with his Excellency Ych. 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 Slates 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." . He imagined that document 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. (Hear.) He believed the fact to be that the relations between the Canton authorities and all the Eu ropean Governments hail become perfectly intolerable. He could not regret, therefere, 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 ho did not fairly ruse the question at issue. Why, the hon. gentleman called upon them most illogically to come to the conc'u-ion that the recent measures adopted against the Chinese were violent and unjust, without taking into consideration tho grounds of complaint which the English Government had against the Chinese authorities. The propositions of the hon. member for the west riding evinced 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. And to wind up all, the hon. gentleman asked for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into our commercial relations with China. Why, that was a separate matter altogether. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know whether the hon. member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren) was in his place. Now, that hon. gentleman made the other night one of the shortest, but certainly not one of the worst speeches that had ever been uttered in that house, when he sail,'" Just fancy the British constitution being referred to a select committee." Now he (Slr. 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 let 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 s del as to the character of the lorcha. Now, there were two classes of British registered vessels which were quite distinct, and which ought not to be confounded together, although each of them ha I a right to carry the British flag. There was first that class of vessels which were fully entitled to registry, and to obtain all the rights of British vessels without the intervention of a special au thority. Thera was, however, another class of vessels which, from the necessities of trade and of pecular circum stance?, were entitled to a colonial and partial registry, which was only available w'd.hin special limits. Many hon. members were, no doubt, aware of that which was called the Mediterranean class—a class which existed for upwards of 200 years. Ships of that class need not bo British built nor British manned, nor even be British owned, and yet be entitled to carry the British flag and to enjoy British protection. Those were ships that were sail ing from Gibraltar, Malta, or other places in the Mediter ranean. He had before him a case of a Gibraltar vessel, in which the con iition of British ownership was dispensed with in 1825, and an or ter 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 , tiered enough that the owner should have had, while on skore, a fixed place of abode at Gibraltar for or during the term of 15 years up to the time of graving or cf tho issuing of such licence. Now that privilege was given by the pre rogative of the Crown—a prerogative which had boon ex ercised at all times by an order in council in the case of a conquered or legal cession. It was under this letter form that a licence was given to Hong Kong, now a ceded colony of the British Crown. It was only now that any doubt was started as to whether the ordinance in the present case was legal. He believed it was clear that when this lorcha lay in the Bay of Canton the Chinese know 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 the nd re v a i l o s le ta n t tl e y o h f a t u h l e in c g as d e e , in stead Arrow of a her flag, they should have remonstrated against what they of boarding re ignorant the might have considered was an abuse of the British flag. He could not agree with the hon. member for the west i riding when he said that the British officials had behaved a rude and intemperate manner, or that they had shown any wish to pick a quarrel with the Cbinese authorities. He (Mr. L.) was not acquainted with Consul Parkes, but he was bound to say that every person who had had an opportunity of judging of his character and conduct had reported him to be a man of good sense, good temper, and the last, person who would be at all likely to behave in a 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 were 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-cled ; but, undoubtedy, 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, hail never been abandoned bythe British Govern ment. He (Mr. L.) could not 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 rtght. 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. Ho said that Sir John Bowring had acted in violation of the express and positive directions given him by Lora Grey when the noble lord was in office. Sir John Bowrins2, was liable to no such imputation. The instructions giv en cou ld no t b e h e l d to have anything lik e a universal a - pplication. Was it int en d e d th a t un der no circurnstanaes should Sir John Bow,iin,g resort to hostile measures, ; that he should never do udore than defend him self?'Why, if on, unfortunate commissioner had any such i nst - auction e given to him, and if they became known to the Cutiuese authorities in Bong Kong, no man would be left in 14 . 1 . / . 19r , e ho peless and deplorable condition than he would be. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1857. a (Hear, hear.) How could such a meaning as this be given ' to the instructions sent to a dependency four months' sai from this country ! But it was said, what a shocking thin,: to give a British consul in Hong Kong the power of in volving England in a war with China. He (Hr. L.) con tended that they were not at war with China, and he hoped that they would never be at war with China. 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 is employed. In a station where England may be said to be close at hand to superintend and direct the course of operations under a commander's control, the case may be very different. But in respect to distant parts of the world, this power cannot be disputed." Now, he (Hr. L.) thought that that settled the question. Sir J. Bowring possessed that right, and the cast; was one which fully: justified him in 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 Washington 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 had been imputed to them of adding China to the British empire. This unfortunate dispute had arisen not with the Emperor of China, but with the local govern ment 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 th oug ht th a t the proceedings which had take n p l ace wou ld rat h er lead to our whole relations with that em pi re b e i ng p l ace d upon a more satisfactory footing. He trusted in God that the time svi it'd come when that great portion of the human race which inhabited the empire would be brought into closer communication with the more civilised portion of the world ; and that the tyrannical and cruel 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 saidl 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 ohould be able to show how groundless was the position assumed 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 bones 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 aloption 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 stage of its history—being built, owned, manned, fought for aad litigated for by Chi nese, and with nothing English about itexcept theaeciden. tal presence of a lad under ago, 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 characterised belongto 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 ; and 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 Perliament 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 to consider the date of that treaty ; and at that d a t e there was no small class of vessels that could possibly have belonged to the English nation. The Chinese were not bound to allow this country a right by subsequent 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 no means the usage at the date of this treaty for the British nation to claim such small vessels as those. The Chinese, therefore, asked the British Government to define 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 1851 that even au 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 according 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 nat%- ralise Austrian subjects, and without the consent of the Emperor of Austria make that naturalisation good as against his Imperial Majesty's rights over his own subjects? This custom of naturalisation was founded upon civilisation and based upon principles of reason. Would any indepen • dent sovereign Buffer 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 not 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 nggt have been so according to the law of nations ; and, he therefore denied that she could have been made English by doing what vessels that were English ware required to do. If at the time of signing the treaty the British Government iu 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 in this monstrous privilege of seling 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 arrangement ? Why, " that legal trading might be protected, and illegal trading prevented." (Hear, hear.) But whet hid 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 maintains'. that this lorcha Arrow, belonging to Chinese subjects, and employed in the Chinese waters, could not at the date of the treaty have been a British vessel. (Hear, hear) If since the date of tee 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 had agreed to it, which it was clear they had not. (Hear.) This was 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; end, if that were so, they could not avail themselves of the 9th art., which said that, if any Chinese mal e f ac t or were on b oar 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 4he act of the Chinese so inexcusable—was it so out rageous, so insulting to the dimity and interests of this country as to merit the bornbardlaent of Canton ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had said that the evidence in the matter was so over whelming in favour of the British authorities, that he won• dered any man could question the course they had pursued. What was that evidence ? The British authorities had only fair witnesses: two Chinese and two Englishmen. (Hoar, hoar.) 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 do wn . B u t C omm i ss i o ner Yeh had not four, but more th an seven ty w it nesses — s oldiers and man darins, 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 have the flag flying till the ship was under weigh. there was no con tradiction to that. (Cheer , .) But 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 lorcha, there is no foreigner on board; haul down the flag." (Cheers.) And when the officer came on board 3 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 hoard, was it not reasonable of him to believe, if there was a flag flying, that it was a pirate's flag. (Hear, and cheers.) This was not merely a question of who was right and who WAR wrong ; it was not only a question as to whether the Chinese wore wrong, hut it was a question as to whether they 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 dealing' with foreign countries, while at home even severe offences against the law did not draw down death upon the offenders? (Hear.) Were they to be phi losophers in national legislation, and ruthless exterminators in every infringement of internat:onal law? (Cheers.) While our Mi n i s t ers at home were dealing mildly with offenders who preyed upon the very vitals of society, our representatives a b road engaged in this—he would not cal l it " war," but in the wholes de massacre of our helpless customers in a remote corner of the globe. (Cheers.) Aed at best, this was but a petty misunderstanding about a trumpery ordinance which the Board of Trade ad mitted to be extremely questionable, and which was in direct variance with other portions of the arrangements with China. (Hear hear.) Commissioner Yeh was blamed by Government for not having apologised. They asked the commissioner to acknowledge that the vessel which b e (the commissioner) believed to b e Chinese belonged t o th e English. Now, in asking him t o do that, did they ne t ask him to be a t ra it o r to his coun try and his Soverei gn ; and to admit t h e au th o rity of the representatives of E ngland to dictate laws t o Chi n a ? I n_- ste id of making any such admission, Commissioner Yeh declared, over and over aga i n, t h at if th e ve ssel were Eng lish he would have a d op t e d a ( M omen t course, a nd he did say to Sir J. Boivring th a t h e (C o mmissioner ' Yeb) would be very much obliged t o hi m if , t o preve ntfaturemisundere standings, ho would not sell English registries to Chinese ships in future. (Rear, and cheers.) HO (Sir E. B. Lyt ton) was indeed ast on i s h e d t o h ear the right hon. gentle man (Mr. Labouch ere ) spea k o f t h e l an guage used by Mr. Consul Parkes as so me thi ng remar kably co urteous —some thing remarkably ?roper f or an official in his rank to ad dress to a viceroy M Commissioner Yeh's pos ition. Now, without repeating what had been said in another place on the subject, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) would just make one quotation from Mr. Parkes's letters. On the 22,1 October hat gentleman writes to Commissioner Yeh —" I should .fate to your excellency that I have such clear and conclu sive proofs of the facts that your excellency attempts to key. ' Now, let the house mark the words, " attempts to deny." (Hear.) Why, in all Commissioner Yeh's cor respondence there was no phrase so gratuitously insulting as that. (Hear, hear.) Would it not have been more be loming in Mr. Parkes to have said, " the facts on which your excellency has been misinformed." (Iler.r.) This young man was addressing one of the five Cabinet Minis- tors of China. How would any of her Majesty's Ministers like to be so addressed by the consul of another State ? • Cord Clarendon had said in another place that "it was 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 .;lainese owner, is not an English vessel." And Sir J. Bowling in one of his first letters made an admission 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 had, perhaps, entirely fallen, for the sake of a vessel which could not be 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 trui h. (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 so-', 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 international law the Em peror would be excused from carrying out such a provision if it was either impracticable or pernicious to his state for him to do so. (Hear, hear.) 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 Canton had always been based upon the latter ground. (Hear.) It appeared from the evidence of the French Jesuits who had visited the interior of China 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 fanaticism and preju dice on the part of the people might be too strong for him. At all 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 admitted us into those ports where he could, and only did not admit us into Canton, because he could not? Was it our duty—were we to insist upon it, no matter if it were impossible or per 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 purpo,e of enforcing it? The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had told the house that this was not the first time that there had been various insults and hostilities on the part of China, an 1 he referred especially to the 3 ear 1802. But what was the reason which Sir J. Be wring 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 1852, and which he began to disturb in 1854. He now, with the most innocent simplicity, pressed for ward our claim to enter the city, because, having attacked and bombarded it with our forces, the Chinese were animated with the greatest hatre 1 and animosity against us. The whole question was brought before Lord Palmerston by Sir G. Bonham in one of those despatches. than which none snore 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 oar 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 Bonham 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 Bon 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, h •ar.) What was the advantage to be gained, then, in the opinion of the noble lord and Sir G. Bonham—not by the indiscriminate entrance 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 spec'al occasions at Canton. No doubt that object was a very desirable one ; desirable in 1819, and desirable now. But in 1849 the noble lord said 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 having been left in abeyance seven or eight years. If the reason that we did not urge it then was the prejudice which existed on the part of the inhabitants of Canton, and the noble lord had wisely left it until time had softened that prejudice, could we expect that prejudice now to diminish when wo 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 his sanction to a diametrically opposite policy in 1851 Lord Malmesbnryalso wisely enforced the precau- tion which the noble lord had I.tid - down ; and Loi-,1 Cla rendon was the first of our ministers, who, listening to the siren voice of Sir John Bowring, had plunged us into this Charybdis. (Hear, hear.) With regtrd to Sir J. Bow- ring they ail know that he was an able and accomplished man ; but he was also a man of enthusiastic temperam nE, 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 huma- nity and justice required of a wise Government, far re moved from the scene, to exercise the most vigilant check upon the acts of those agents ; and when the Government give 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 o deal. Here, then, in his place as a representative of the people, it was the Government that he charged. He charged them with sanctioning, an ordi nance which, unknown to Parliament, had turned into a dead letter that grand act of the Imperial Legislature which regulated the whole trade and navigation of the country. He charged them with enforcing that urdinance by violat ino the law of nations and the spirit of English honour. He 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. DA.VIE3 opposed the resolution. Sir J. RA.MSDEN could not agree that the house wag 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 ab nit the illegality of the register granted to the lorcha ; but it must be remembered that when the or dina'ace authorising registers was formally transmitted to Commissioner Yeh, nearly a year before these disputes, he made na objection whatever. lie had, therefore, precluded himself from objecting to these registers afterwards. Igo 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 he 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 he thought Sir J. Bowring had committed was in supposing that the lorcha hal forfeited her register, when she certainly had not. He read the proclamation of Commissioner Yeh, offering 100 dollars for the head of every Englishman, and indignantly repudiated the idea of international law being applied to a people who could sanction such outrages. Sir. T. HERBERT, as having served in China, strongly condemned the proceedings of Admiral Seymour. Sir E. PERRY excited the laughter and ironical cheers of the home 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 ythe the ß ri G ti o s v h er m n e o i r .c h ha ad utbs at n been alto ge ther independent of party feel in g s, h o came to the con sideration of the question on its merits, and t h at considera tion led Lim to believe that the British authorities were balto getherui.gedon to hisiintie wrong.pres Canton, who were all engag ed in the smu gg lin g trade , and who were, besides, all in de bt to the Chinese, an d would be glad to haVe their debt s cancelled b y a war. He advis ed that G overnmen t should now send a h igh official, backed by a a nt course believed strong naval force to China, who mi g ht examine in to the points of dispute, and then act upon his own views of justice, tempered with hurnan7ty, which the force at his disposal would prevent being mistaken for fear. Mr. GREGSON defended the British merchants at Canton, awl strongly reprobated the language in which Mr. Cobden and Sir B Perry bad spoken of them. He recommended Lord Palmerston to insist on the strict performance of the Chinese, as ho 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 one must allow due weight to their opinions and representations, we must not forget, according to the motion of the hon. 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 distinct policy might he unfolded, to which Parliament might look for future security. Sir, lam sorry to say that in all these particulars the speech of my right hon. friend is a disappointment. (Hear.) The question is na+urally divided, as it appears to nae, under three heads—the Ist, the licensing the lorcha Arrow ; 2dly, our entrance into Canton demanded according to treaty ; • and 3dly, the policy which ker Majesty's Government intend to pursue; and the objects at which they aim in the hostilities which have been carried on in China. (Hear.) Now with respect to the first point, I need not detain the house long, and especially as I need not enter into the question of the triple illegality to which my hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) has referred. That argument has been stated by him with great perspicuity, while the goner 1 law of nations as bearing upon the case has just been laid 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 bears upon the ques tion, in reality, as it seems to me, does not touch the facts at all.. The right hon. gentleman states that for a long time -200 years, he says—however, it matters not how long the period, in certain of our colonies a practice prevailed of grant- I 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 we o not in contravention of any act of the Imperial Parliament. If they are in 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 I laid down by which the use of those privileges was strictly guarded. Amongst the rules, therefore, was one 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 eftbetual 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 coun try ? (Loud 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 he need not be as particular as with others. Take the case of Gibraltar ; there are many Spaniards residing there. Sap pose that one 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 one believe that if this vessel were to go to lealag,a or Alba ceras, and that, if this prate were recognised, the Spanish authorities w.iuld 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 ace subjects.. And will any man tell , mo that supposing the Governor of Malaga or A lbuceras had arrested the man, and that he was detained by the Spanish authorities, that the governor would have ventured to order the commander of i 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 tbeu have been referred home, and the Government at home would have applied to the Spanish authorities for redress, which would, no doubt, ultim ttely be given. (Hear, hear.) And let 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 required. And after all this they appeal to the authorities. Then we come to the next question, wh'eh 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 has been postponed from time to time, and 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 worth possessing, if obtained by fair negotiation, but the whole ad vantage of it is destroyed by a retort to arms. Well, Sit J. Bowring, unfortunately, did not take that view of the ab ject. But more than this, he has added to this difficult qiies tion' which bad not been solved from the year 1842 to 1856, 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 are within a certain period re dressed, we give notice of it that we shall consider it as a cants bell, 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 in 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 apology 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 animas 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 were an Englishman on board he would 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 had 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 be granted, 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 from 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 jaw 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 the Imperial junk." So far no great harm was done, but still I think a caution should have been added not to pursue hostilities further. 'Bat 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 thht her Majesty's Government should have considered that those officials had committed a serious offence—that they had without just cause 'Raced 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' home go vernment, and without due deliberation on their part. On January the 10th the noble earl at the head of our foreign af fairs informs Sir J. Bowring that " her Majety'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 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 Government. 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 ber Majesty's Government. (Hear.) It is the result of the forbearance of the Chinese Government for 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 pewer 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 net done so, and happily we arc not at war with them. con the Bth of Oct., and the following days, Consul Parkes asked that the men 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 been incarcerated. Well that was not a very serious demand. On 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. do Courcy on the subject of this claim, and that gentleman had replied to him with a degree of ,prudence and discretion which" wish were imitated by our own officers, namely, that he had withdrawn his forces which had 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 this gentleman 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 in Chin a. " N ow, what does this m ean 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. You 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 hauling down of the flag of the miserable Arrow, and the refusal after almost an understanding 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 t you demand cann o t be granted by the governor of Canton, i t can only be grant e d by th e E m p ero r at Pekin, and upo n reference to th e grea t i n te res t s o f the empire. For mylead a ea n dto l do not wish these operations to go on. I fear theay may disorganised state a long and bloody conflict ; but especially, i n the state of China, I apprehend that they will m an and man, t lead to social anarchy—to a rupture of relations betwe en and to a cessation with this country of hose advantageous relations of commerce which have hither t o existed ; and for the purpose of a very doubtful goo d we risk the possession of all those enormous benefits. T he just spoken alluded to the resentment hon. gentleman who has which characterises I the conduct of the Chinese. Many of those offences of which ho ie le er p e r a o se sp i e n e prospect e we complain have been committed by low vagabonds. (Hear.) He tells you at the , t i li s e th g e rea w t trade of silk and tea. gain W e el t l i , m l e as okf u jo s fo i into our friendly commerce with that country, which is so advan tageous, to be sacrificed by some whim of Sir J. Bowring , who, in order to gra tify o i n t, o h t, es u i p tat t e o s n th o i t s to m p om lu e n i g it e . war? (Hear.) what the exact naWtuerearof those . d . emands . are. How do we e know but that Sir John Bowring is at this moment making fresh demands, and is adopting the most coercive means in his power to enforce them, But the right hon, gen tl eman the S ecre t ar y 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 from its government, which I believe to be one of the greatest peg sible 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 displaced in 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 ment lately bad at Naples will no doubt suffice to instruct them in regard to the internal government of China (Hear.) Commissioner Yeh is said to be a very bad governor. I am told that he is likely to be disavowed. That however, does not appear to be the case. Th e r i g ht h on. gentleman said he was high in favour with the Emperor, and therefore not likely to be removed. His views are probably adopted by the Government of Pekin. Well, if that be 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, he might say, " After all, my commissioner 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 cannot 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 bas been used to protect criminal pursuits, my noble friend at the head of the Government has with just indignation eo's; plained of such an unjust prostitution of the flag. I In' that my noble friend, in a letter to the American Govern' meat 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 b ona fi de sailing under the flag of a friendly nation, my noble friend, alluding t o vessels trading in slaves, said that these vessels could not expect to evade the right of search "by hoisting a piece o , f, bunting with the stars and stripes of the United States. (Loud cheers.) Sir, had opinions like these prevailed amongst the authorities at Canton they would have said, " You mast 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. Bowring's own law sb• was not entitled to protection, and thus the case would have fallen as, it ought to have fallen. (Cheers.) But, unfortu 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 .1. Bowring, while he de clared.that this vessel had lost all right to British protection , still sets up her claim to that protection against the Chines' 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 lately _too much, indeed—about the prestige or thi s c ountry. _ _ I(Hear.) We used to hear of the character - OfEngiank o f the honour of England, of the reputation of England. I trust, sir, that the character, and the honour, and the reputation of this country will ever be dear to us all. (Cheers.) But as to the prestige separated from those 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 in the wrong ; we must continue- to do that injustice, or otherwise the Chinese will think we are afraid of them." 111, reply to that statement, I on this occasion say, " Be just an d fear not." (Hear, hear, and great cheering.) On the point of prestige I do net pretend to judge ; but I cannot but con sider that the honour of this country will be raised more then ever when it can be said that a troublesome, meddlesome official, having prostituted th ; arm s o f 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 coo' try, would they consent to stain that honour which, after an , 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 sign al favour with which the speech of the noble lord had been re' ceived—(cheers)—he should ask the indulgence of the bonee 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 againe their Emperor. The hon. baronet opposite (Sir E. Bnbr et Lytton) had taken the same ground. (Hear, hear.) If that doctrine were -good a great many British ships would kW the protection they now enjoyed ; all would be excluded from that protection except ships British-built, British-owned , and British-manned. Hong Kong had been ceded to England. and the inhabitants handed over to English Government. It had been said that these persons remained Chinese subjects; but that proposition could not be 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 quasi subjects of the British Crow , and they might be indicted for high treason did they take u P 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 th e , Chinese Government without having obtained that of tint! country? It was to give them this protection that the disputed ordinance had been promulgated ; and this was a humane, regulation, which the house ought to uphold for the sake n! humanity. The ordinance was legal in its inception, and lt 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. In 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 lorcha, what would have been the indignation of the hon. member for the West Riding at the wretched quibbling and sophistry of the British agents in China ? But the question was not merely a legal one, but one ielating to the animus o f the Chinese authorities against this country. A letter front Sir J. Bowring to Commissioner Yeh, in Nov , 1855, about 1 1 months before the occurrence under discussion, informed that governor that all persons, natives included, in Hong Kong could obtain for their vessels protection by registration. Til letter also contained a warning to the Chinese on theesubjee of interference with vessels so protected. No remonstrance wall made to this letter. Therefore the Chinese did not in the Ar' row ease act from ignorance of the effect of the colonial rot* tration. Much as he 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 governmen t at home, but upon those who committed the lawless and ill 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 al - justice was concerned, from those which regulated our deal" rugs with European powers. Conscience was of no conntrft and the laws of morality and justice were 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. It Wa s that they proportioned their canduct to war d s those with whom they came in contact by their own ideas of their pore! 3f defending themselves, and aggressions which a grog' 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. The violence in the present c a se did not come from us, but from 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, ad' mit before the face of the people, in whose presence they dishonoured the British flag, that they were bound to make reparation. The insult to our honour they declined to 'redress , and they had declined that redress up to this very day. It might not be very philosophical, perhaps, to connect with a flag which, aftey all, was only a bit of painted linen, ideas of 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 w a shed again —(oh, oh) —at all events, the constituents of the bon. member for the West Riding could turn out a new one. (Re' newed cries of " Oh.") This flag, which hon. gentlemen opposite sneered at —(vehement shouts of." No")—brave and noble men had nailed to the mast, and rather gone dOwn with, it in the depths of the ocean than en d ure th e i g n om i n y o f 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 dignity of a nation, had themselves a power and an influence over the human mind, and in proportion as we guarded and respected them se would they be guarded and respected by other 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 leis: hon, friend when he gave his notice sepa• rated the motion into two, with the figures "1" and "2" pre fixed ; whilst the word " resolutions," not " resolution " was written at the top. It was clear, therefore, that it was the intention of his hon. friend to submit his notion in two dis tinct propositions, and he hoped that, as it did not appear on the paper in the fqrm in which it was handed in, the house would consent to its being altered And submitted in the fora) in v4lieh it was intended by his hon. friend. The SPEAKER said there could be no doubt that it was the original intention of the hon. member for the West Riding to put in two resolutions, though by some mistake of 11,1 Theemember h r o sat use the printer they appeared on the papdneirdth not one.mnaneho downwou Id after remember, addressing house, that w h h e e left to infer a t u h y at m be tion ; he (the Speaker) was, th er e for e , meant to move what ho foun d on the paper, and there being no distinction by thnumbereosnhteionno hon, memb e r etmohsfeeempt course,bawr separated r trewcsh si;efintibttuhieutsh no and the original read ing ai them, e m t , ing interrupted by o certainly bj eco n , p , t u h t e them could the adjournment o omu f lasd the debate both first be withdrawn. motion house oio a motion must both u f for Mr. COBDEN said his intention was, undoubtedly, to move the resolutions separately, and he was utterly at loss to conceive how the mistake had arisen. He thought directions ought to be given the printer to use more care in dealing with the manuscripts that were put into his hando, for he observed that a pencil mark had been run through the figure " 2," and the word " resolutions" converted into the singular from the plural, Lord PALMERSTON apprehended the house could not reasonably object to allow the hon. member to move his rest" lutioo in the manner he had originally intended—but ho must say that he thought it was rather incumbent upon the hon. gentleman to have looked at the votes and seen whether his notice was printed in the manner he proposed to submit them to the house. (Hear.) Had he exercised that care which ever/ member who had a motion to make should naturally exercise, and just hear whether the resolutions were properly put or not, the mistake would havowbeen avoided. He was sure► however, the house would not be disposed to offer any opPn sition to the change, but allow the resolution to be put from the chair in the manner the hon, gentleman said' he first in tended. The motion for adjourning the debate and the original mo tion were then withdrawn, and the first resolution put from the chair. On the motion of Mr. WARREN, the debate was then ad journed. Mr, ROEBUCK—To what day I Lord PALMERSTON—To this day. (Hear, hear.) The Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill waS then passed through committee ; and The house adjourned at twenty minutes past twelyc. LONDON : Printed and Pnbliahed by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No• 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Friday, February 27, 3857.