The Press.
London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

tained ; this was, for wilful desertion of a wife by a
husband. He objected to the new clause which was
to give to voluntary separations the force and power
of law. Against such separations the highest judicial
authorities had invariably set their Nees. They
were opposed to the principle of law, and the Lord
Chancellor, in introducing this clause, was not main-
taining, hut altering and violating the law, to the
great peril of public policy.
The Bishop of EXETER moved the postponement
of the bill for three months, in order to give the
Lord Chancellor time to amend it.
Lord ST. LEONARD 3 declared that the bill left the
law of divorce exactly where it found it. It only
proposed to give to a court the great power at pre-
sent possessed by Parliament. He should give his
assent to the bill if it ultimately assumed the shape
he wished it to take.

The Bishop of OXFORD felt himself bound to vote
for the Bishop of Exeter's amendment. In his
opinion the object of all legislation on these points
ought to be to fence marriage with as many safe-
guards as possible, but this bill proceeded on a
diametrically opposite principle, when it allowed
man and wife to dissolve the marriage tie altogether
on the occurrence of any slight disagreement.
Lord WENSLEYDALE thought the measure ought
not to be postponed, and declared his intention of
voting for the second reading.
_ _

The Earl of DERBY Rh()llia adhere to his intention
of voting for the second reading, but he should only
do so on the understanding that it was to receive the
meturest reconsideration in the committee.

The LORD CHANCELLOR replied.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers
were

For the second reading
Against it lO
Majority
The hill was accordingly read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.
HOSTILITIES WITH CHINA.

The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr.
ROUNDELL PALMER, who maintained that it was
indispensable that the Government should show
that the Chinese had committed a violation of their
treaty with Great Britain. Now this had not yet
been achieved. It had been admitted that the
British flag by itself was wholly irrelevant to the
question as to the nationality of the .4rroto; it
must be shown that by the treaty she was an
English merchant vessel, and if this were not done
there was no justification whatever for the hostili-
ties. A British lorcha without a British register
was not a British vessel ; for he denied the position
of the Attorney General, that the vessel was British
because the owner was resident at Hong Kong. If
this were true, by a parity of reasoning, an English-
man residing at Canton or Shanghai might impart a
Chinese character to his ship, a doctrine which, as
he argued at some length, would lead to absurd con-
sequences. Then, was there any other ground
besides ownership? The British character could be
impressed upon the vessel only by the Colonial Ordi-
nance, and, assuming that ordinance to be legal, the
register granted under it had expired, and he main-
tained that the expiry of the register was absolutely
fatal to the case. There could be no mistake ; Sir
John Bowring must have understood the matter ;
ho knew and confessed that the protection under the
register was gone. Upon the general question,
much, he observed, had been said of the crimes of
the Chinese, the vexations suffered by Englishmen
in China, and the vices of the Chinese Government ;
but the true bearing of these remarks, in his opinion,
was not that we should persevere in the course we
had taken, but if we dealt with a people who were
misgoverned, imperfectly civilised, and easily pro-
voked to outrage and violence, that we should be
more careful to exhibit an example of humanity and
moderation in our conduct towards them, instead of
asserting our power, and, after obtaining reasonable
reparation, insisting upon further demands.
Colonel HERBERT supported the motion.
Mr. KENDALL opposed the motion, principally
upon the ground that if carried it would displace
Lord Palmerston, to whom the country was grateful
for his late episcopal appointments.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that nothing gave him so
much confidence that it was right to support the
present motion as the general support accorded by
the Conservative party. That support was a great
proof of the propriety and justice of the motion
before the house. The hon. member then referred to
the reported meeting of the Liberal party at Lord
Palmerston's, remarked upon the absence of Lord
.Tohn Russell and other distinguished Liberals upon
that occasion :

He read in the newspapers that one thing stated at the
meeting was that the noble lord at the head of the Govern•
mentwas a man of extraordinary luck—(laughter)—and that
it would be well for those present to give him their support.
Well, now, he ( Mr. M. Gibson) should think that the
Canton and the Persian difficulties were no proof that good
fortune had attended the career of the noble lord. He
believed that the cause of these foreign couirlications was

223

to be traced to what the hon. and learned member for
Sheffield salted the mischievous activity of the noble lord,
who interfered in all parts of the known world. ( Hear. )
What were they to inscribe upon their banner if they were
to go to a general election, as had been threatened in the
event of this motion being carried? They must have a
political banner of some kind with which to go to the
country. They were told that the name of Lord Palmers-
ton was a tower of strength. He ( Mr. Gibson) doubted
that, ( Hear, hear.) Could they put on their political
banner the old motto, "Peace, Retrenchment, Reform?"
(Laughter.) Would they be able to stand upon the bom-
bardment of Canton and no reform ? (Laughter.) He con-
curred with his hon. friend the member for the West Riding
in thinking that if they were to ask the country to give the
Liberal party increased power, in order to enable them to
carry on the administration of public affairs, they would be
obliged to pick up some new principles for that party, and to
inscribe on their banner something more than was indicated
at the political meeting that was held at the residence of the
noble lord. He (Mr. Gibson) felt at liberty to make these
statements, for lie could assure the house that the pressure
—the disagreeable pressure—that was put upon hon. gentle-
men to induce them to change their votes noon this impor-
tant question (loud criesof "Hear, hear " ) was of a character
that could only be equalled br., the pressure put upon voters
at a small provincial contested election in order to compel
them to vote in this or that direction.

Applying himself more directiy to the main question
before the house, the hon. member, referring to the
nationality of the lorcha, cited a dictum of Dr. Lush-
ington delivered in the Admiralty Court, to the effect
that it was not competent to any State, by its own
regulations, at once to change the national character
of a vessel to the detriment of other States, which
confirmed, he said, the view taken by Lord Lynd-
hurst of this question, that this country had no right
to convert a Chinese ship into a British ship.
_

Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said the motion resolved
itself into two questions,—were our officials on the
spot justified in the course they had pursued, and
were her Majesty's Government worthy of censure
for supporting those officials. He complained of the
attacks upon Sir John Bowring, who, he said, had
been hunted down, called a liar, a blunderer, and
everything but a thief. But it was not Sir John
Bowring at Hong Kong who was struck at, but the
Minister In Downing-street; the real object was to
displace Lord Palmerston, to throw overboad the
man who had brought us through the war, who
never forsook a friend, and had no enemies but those
of his country.
Mr. HENLEY was of opinion that in the matter of
the lorcha, whether the Chinese were right or wrong,
the seizure of the forts was a sufficient reprisal and
reparation. But, after this, the case was complicated
by another demand, the right of entry, under the
treaty, into Canton • and there was not anything in
the papers which led him to the conclusion that it
was either a justifiable demand or wise policy to
endeavour to obtain its concession in the mode that
was adopted. Much had been said of the effects
which this resolution might have on the other side
of the water ; but he must not be asked, be ob-
served, to approve acts which no circumstances
in human life could justify—downright, wilful, and
deliberate untruth, and the bringing the horrors of
war, without proved necessity and without warning,
upon non-combatants.
Mr. E. EGERTON should vote against the motion,
upon the ground that the practical effect of it out
in China would be to endanger British life and in-
terests.

Mr. CocrtuANE supported the motion.

Mr. T. CHAMBERS opposed the motion. He bad ar-
rived at the conclusion that, in point of law, we were
right in the matter of the Arrow. But it was almost
immaterial whether we were right or not ; it was per-
fectly plain that Commissioner Ycli did not know that
the vessel was not under British protection. But the
lorcha was not the cause of hostilities. There was no
doubt that it was but the occasion of the breaking out
of a storm which had been collecting since 1842.
Mr. ROEBUCK accepted the motion as a vote of
censure not simply upon the officials at Canton, but
upon Lord Palmerston and his colleagues. Why?
Because they had approved all the acts of those
officials ; they had assumed the responsibility, and
the house ought to fix that responsibility upon them.
The Attorney-General, he said, had argued, as if ho
had a retaining fee, a question which ought to be
argued upon the principles of morality and humanity ;
and, supposing the law to be as he had put it, were
the people of England, he asked, prepared to take
upon themselves the responsibility of the proceedings
st Canton ? If the Chinese were wrong, they erred
in comma) with great luminaries of the law in this
country, and why should they be punished, their
houses shattered, and their relatives butchered? But
we had alleged another plea—the Chinese, it was
said, had broken the treaty. He wanted to know if
there had been no breach of the treaty on our part.
Their refusal to let us enter the city should be dealt
with tenderly.

Mr. GLADSTONE contradicted the statement of Sir G.
Grey respecting 'the (appointment of Sir J. Bowring,
for which he (Mr. Gladatone);declared Lord Clarendon

224

was responsible. But it was unjust, he added, to make

at Hong Kong a scapegoat in the

controversy. The aggressive policy which he had
somewhat clumsily carried out was neither unknown
to nor disapproved by the Government, who must be
made answerable for transactions which had in his
opinion tarnished the honour of England. Upon the
high ground of natural justice, he considered the
policy of England utterly indefensible. We had
broken our treaty obligations, organised a fleet ot
smugglers, and crowned our misdeeds by burning
and bombarding a city in order to secure entrance for
our envoy. It was maintained that there was no war
with China, but what was there?—
There is hostility. There is bloodshed. There is a
trampling down of the weak by the strong. There is the
terrible and abominable retaliation of the weak upon the
strong. You are now occupied in this house by revolting
and harrowing details about a Chinese baker who poisoned
bread, by proclamations for the capture of British heads,
and the waylaying of a postal steamer. And these things
you think strengthen your case. Why, they deepen your
guilt. (Loud cheers.) War taken at the best is a fright-
ful scourge to the human race, but because it is so the
wisdom of ages has surrounded it with strict laws and
usages, and has required formalities to be observed which
shall act us a curb upon the wild passions of man, to prevent
thatscourge from being let loose unless under circumstances
of full deliberation and from absolute necessity. You have
dispense,' with all these precautions. You have turned a
consul into a diplomatist, and that metamorphosed consul
is forsooth to be at liberty to direct the whole might of
England against the head of a defenceless people.
(Cheers.) While war is a scourge and curse to man it is
yet attended with certain compensations. It is attended
with acts of heroic self-sacrifice and of unbounded daring.
It is ennobled by a consciousness that you are meeting
equals in the field,and that while you challenge the issue of
life or death you at least enter into a fair encounter. liut
you go to China and make war upon those who stand be.
fore you as women or children. (Cheers.) They try to
resist you ; they call together their troops; they load their
guns; they kill one and wound another in action, but
while they are doing so you perhaps slay thousands. They
are unable to meet you in the field. You have no equality
of ground on which to meet them. You can earn no glory
in such warfare. ( Loud cheers.) And it is those who
put the British flag to such uses that stain it. (Cheers.)
He denounced the argument that, having embarked
in an unrighteous course, we should persevere rather
than incur the risk of appearing afraid. No one, lie
observed, had ventured to express an unqualified ap-
proval or the wrongs committed at Canton, and for
what, he asked, were we at war with the Ch;nese ?
The Government had not stated what we were asking
from them. Were we afraid of the moral effect upon
the Chinese if the acts of the Government were dis-
avowed? But consider, he said, the moral impres•
sion which must now be produced, and never could
be avoided. If the house had the courage to assert
its prerogative and adopted this resolution, it would
pursue a course consistent at once with sound policy
and the principles of eternal justice.
Lord PALMERSTON said acts could only be
judged by the animus that inspired them, and of
this, from a detail of the circumstances in question,
he argued that there could be no doubt whatever.
We had a treaty with the Chinese stipulating that
British vessels should not be boarded without a pre-
vious application to the British Consul, and the
question was, what did the Chinese know or believe
as to the nationality of the Arrow? Did they con-
sider her a British vessel? He said they did, and if
they knowingly violated the treaty, it was immaterial
whether, according to the technicalities of the law,
the register had expired. It was the animus of the
insult—the wiiful violation of the treaty—that en-
titled us to demand reparation for the wrong and an
assurance of future security. lie insisted that, after
the refusal of reparation—only one of many viola-
tions of treaty rights by the Chinese—hostilities
were amply justified, and that our proceedings were
marked by extreme forbearance compared with the
proceedings of the Americans when their flag was
insulted. The outrage committed upon the lorcha
was only part of a deliberat9 system on the part of
the Chinese officials to wrest from us a right essen-
tial to our commerce in those waters. It had been
observed that reprisals should have been first re-
sorrel to, and so they were, but without effect. The
exeouti)n of the ulterior operations rested with
Admiral Seymour, who, if of opinion that they were
excessive, would not have permitted them. To the
question what the future policy ot the Government
would be, ho replied that this must depend in a great
measure upon the courss of events; their first duty
would be to protect British subjects in China. Rut
for these events a friendly diplomatic mission, in
covjunction with France and America, would pro.
bably havo been sent to Pekin in order to obtain
pu extegeion of our ooraraerolol ***Wiwi or for

THE PRESS.

placing our existing relations upon a more satisfac-
tory footing. The noble lord then alluded to the
tendency of the debate to mark the motion as a vote of
censure on the Government. What were the Govern-
ment wanted to do ? Tell Yell that he was right, and
sacrifice the interests and safety of our fellow sub-
jects in China? Such a proceeding would be dis-
graceful to the country as well as dangerous to those
whom we were bound to defend. He maintained
that an outrage had been committed which demanded
an apology, and an assurance that the like would
not be repeated. The treaty had been deliberately
and offensively violated, and the appeals made to
humanity, to justice, and to the Christian religion in
behalf of the Chinese were appeals made in behalf
of flagitious falsehood, inhumanity, and atrocious
crime. If the house listened to these appeals and
adopted the motion then before the house, the world
would say that England had descended from her
high station at the beck of the basest, meanest, and
most degraded beings in the civilised world, and, for
fear of the expenses and efforts necessary to protect
their countrymen, had abandoned a large commu-
nity of British subjects at the extreme end of the
globe to a set of barbarians—" a set of kidnapping,
murdering, poisoning barbarians." Those who
looked below the surface and investigated causes
would at once proclaim this to be the result of an
accidental condition of things in the British Parlia-
ment, *hereby a secret combination of men of
opposite opinions sought, by an artful appeal to the
sympathies of members, to oust a Government pos-
aes.ing the confidence and support of the British
nation:—

Foreign nations will say that this coalition, practising
upon the good feelings of certain persons, and uniting
themselves with those from whom they have been hitherto
long and widely separated, have—if the result should be
so—succeeded in ( 1 will use no uncivil term) extracting
from the house a vote the effect of which is diff.rent from
that which it would have been had they manfully and
boldly stated their object. (Cheers.) Foreign nations
will say," Don't trust the English Government. Look at
the result of this debate and division. There are some
members of the Legislature who raise the nicest legal
quibbles, who endeavour to excuse the most atrocious
crimes, who take part with any foreigner against an
Englishman, and who—like the hon member for the
West Riding—almost repudiate their country. This
result may have arisen from a combination of accidental
circumstances, but beware how you imagine that you can
venture to deal with the British Government upon the as.
gumption that they represent the feelings and intentions
of the nation."

He trusted that every member would view the
question in its true light, as bearing upon the
interests of the country, and give their votes in such
a manner as to maintain the honour and dignity of
the nation. (Lou.l cheers.)

Mr. DISRIELI wished to recal the attention of the
house to the real issue about to be decided. Lord
Palmerston had characterised the motion as indefi-
nite, and as virtually a vote of censure upon the
Government. He (Mr. Disraeli) would accept it as
a vote of censure upon the Government, and he
thought it more for the honour of the House of Com-
mons that it should be so considered than that it
should be regarded as a mere censure upon absent
officials. He had no wish to enter into the legal
arguments of the question of the Arrow. The
question really had been throughout one of policy,
not of law, and be trusted the house would not be
diverted from the real issue by the tone of Lord
Palmerston's speech :

The noble lord made use of a regular let quoque argu-
ment. ( Hear.) Some gentlemen have found fault with
what they have described as a disregard for truth on the
part of Sir .J. Bowring ; to that the noble lord replies that
Yeh is a liar. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Some
gentlemen have spoken with more freedom than perhaps
I should have allowed myself to use of the conduct of
British merchants abroad; to that the noble lord replies
that we who are going to vote for this resolution are influ-
enced by a lust for gold. Hear, hear.)
But to come to the question of policy :
It is an attempt by force to increase our commercial
relations with the East. ( Hear, hear.) I agree with my
hon. friend the member for Liverpool and my lion. friend
the member for Hastings that it is most desirable to have
our commercial relations with China increased ; and I
should look forward with great interest to the new treaty
for that object to which the nohle lord has referred ; but I
cannot reconcile such ..a policy with the course that has
recently been pursued by the Government. There is one
idea too prevalent with regard to China,—viz., that all
England has to do is to set with energyin order to produce
the same results as in India. Fifty years ago Lord Has.
tines offered to conquer China if he were only allowed
50,000 men. So great a captain as the Marquis of Hastings
might have conquered that empire, but since the time
when our Clives and Hastings founded our great Indian
empire the position of affairs in the East has greatly
changed. Gzeat powers have been brought into contact
with us in the East. We have the Russian empire and
the American republic there, and a political compromise
developing itself like the balance of power in Europe; and,
if you are not cautious and careful in your con luot now in
dealing with China, you will find that you are likely not to
establish commerce, but to excite the jealousy of powerful

SATURDAY,

States, and to involve yourselves in hostilities with nations
not inferior to yourselves. Look at the position in which
you have placed yourselves within these two months with
the two countries of Persia and China. I hope we may
have peace with Persia, and that in a few days that peace
will be announced, having probably accepted the very
terms we some months ago refused. But if you have peace
with Persia you will probably have succeeded in establish.
ing Russian ascendancy iu that country by your violent
conduct, while in China, where also you may soon have
peace, you will have established the ascendancy of the
United States. (Hear, hear.)
Now, if that was the true state of affairs, England
should and must dismiss from its mind the idea of
dealing as it has done with barbarous States with
which powers civilised like ourselves have great sym-
pathies, and must habituate itself to the idea of
extending to countriei like China the same diplo-
matic intercourse that we have with other nations :

You cannot do that in a moment : but I maintain that
we have made great. advances in our relations with China
already, and that the policy which the Government has
adopted is one which will deprive my hon. friends the
members for Liverpool and Hastings of those very results
which they desire to obtain. (Hear, hear.) You are
dealing with a country of immense antiquity. You have
been reminded in this debate that China enjoys a civilisa-
tion of twenty-five centuries. Why, sir, the civilisation of
Europe is nothing to that. But the result of those ancient
habits and customs is the existence of great ceremony and
etiquette, and you expect that a country of that kind should
not be outraged by the frank and sometimes the brutal
freedom of European manners. With the policy which has
been indicated by the noble lord—the policy of combina-
tion with other powtrful European States in attempting to
influence the conduct of the Chinese by negotiations and
treaties—it is my firm hope and belief that ultimately,
slowly but surely, we may attain our end; but it is because
the actual policy of the Government—the policy approved
and vindicated by the noble lord—seems to me inconsistent
with the policy of combination with other European States,
that I think the time has arrived for the House of Com-
mons to express an opinion upon events so startling and
upon behaviour so inconsiderate.
How had the house been called upon to express its
opinion ?

We have been told to-night of factious combinations and
concerted movements. Let us see whether the facts justify
such broad accusations on the part of the noble lord.
Why, sir, one thing is quite clear. Here is a motion of
which notice was given by a gentleman sho acts certainly
in no political connection with hon. members on this side
of the house, and with not many on the other side.
( A laugh.) It is evident that the motion could not have
been seen before it was placed in your hands, sir, by any
great number of members, because—the objection was, I
admit, almost a technical one—it was drawn up in such a
manner, with what we call the annexe of a proposed com-
mittee, that many hon. gentlemen on this side of the
house at once declared that they could not support it in
that form. (Hear, hear.) We have been told, sir, of
party moves. I really think the time has come when both
sides of the house should cease indulging in these plati-
tudes. (Cheers and laughter.) Why, sir, everything is a
party move in a house which ought to be ruled by party,
and which, if not ruled by party, would soon lose all its
significance. What is a party but a body of men who have
a policy which they recommend, and who do not shrink
from the responsibility of putting that policy into practice ?
But I maintain that there has b !en no party move on the
present occasion. A resolution has been brought forward
by the hon. member for the West Riding. On this side of
the house it has received considerable, but not unanimous
support. I have the misfortune to differ on this occasion
from many gentlemen with whom I act in political life, and
among whom are some of my most intimate friends in
private life.
If I look to the benches opposite I find there the noble
lord the member for the City. (Cheers.) He is also a party
to this unprincipled combination. I really think that the
First Minister should settle his courteous description with
his late much cherished and honoured colleague, and not
with me. (A laugh.) There are also gentlemen opposite
who once did act in very intimate connection with the Con-
servative party, and the apprehension that that intimacy
should be renewed has conjured up before the First Minis-
ter a combination at once the most horrible and the most
heterogeneous. (Cheers and laughter.) The First Minis-
ter is of all men the man who cannot bear a coalition.
(Laughter.) Why, sir, he is the very archetype of political
combinations without avowed principles. (Great cheering
and laughter.) See how his Government is formed. It
was only last year that every member of his Cabinet in this
house supported a bill introduced, i think, by a late col-
league. It was opposed in the other house by a member
of the Government, who, to excuse his apparent inconsis-
tency, boldly declared that when he to9k office the First
Minister required no pledge from him on any subject
whatever. ( Laughter.) Yet the noble lord is alarmed and
shocked at this unprincipled combination ! The noble 101 l
cannot bear coalitions ! The noble lord has acted only with
those among whom lie was born and bred in politics.
(Cheers and laughter.) That infant Hercules ( exclaimed
the right lion. gentleman pointing to Lord Palmerston)
was taken out of the Whig cradle, and how consistent has
been his political life ! (Renewed laughter.) Looking
back upon the last half century, during which he hail pro-
fessed almost every principle, and connected himself with
almost every party, the noble lord his raised a warning
voice tonight against coalitions, because he fears that
majority of the House of Commons, ranking in its numbers
some of the most eminent members of the house—mu
who hare beeu colleagues of the noble hgd—lual 144