The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

And again, in a letter dated October 13, he says :

I will consider the regrantiug the register of the Arrow, if
applied for; but there can be no doubt that after the expiry of
the licence protection could not be legally granted.
In the same letter, also, Sir John Bowring admitted
that the provisions of the registry ordinance bad not
been complied with iu the case of the Arrow, for he
writes :

I find, on inquiry at the harbour-roaster's, that the register of
the Arrow has not been regulariy yreseuted at his oitice ac•
cording to the regulations.

Now, my lords (observed the noble earl), how steads
the case ? The ordinance provides that any in-
fringement of its provisions shall render the vessel
carrying a licence under it ipso facto liable to forfei-
ture, and shall forfeit all its claim to protection, and
in the case of the Arrow—we have it under Sir J. Bow-
ring's own hand—not only that the registry had expired,
and that the vessel could no longer claim protection as a
British vessel, but that it had been guilty of an infringe-
ment of the provisions of the ordinance in not depositing
its register with the harbour-master in the manner re-
quired, and had :actually thus incurred the risk of forfeiture.
Now, my lords, I should like to know, in the face of these
declarations of Sir J. Bowring, what honourable or honest
man could sanction or could have written or put forward
claims such as those advanced by Sir J. Bowring in his
letter to the Imperial Commissioner Yell, dated Nov. 14.
In that letter he stews:—

SATURDAY,

Whatever representations may have been made to your Ex.
celleney, there is no doubt that the lorcha Arrow lawfully bore
the British flag u• der a register granted by me, and that treaty
obligations were violated by the seizure of her crew without the
intervention of the consul by your officers, and that this viola-
tion required a reparation as public as the outrage. I have un-
doubted evidence that the British flag was flying when IL was
pulled down by your officer, and I quite approve the conduct of
the consul in the whole of this affair.
So that, on the one hand, we have Sir J. Bowring writing
to Consul Parkes that the Arrow was not entitled to pro-
tection ; while, on the other hand, he writes to the Imperial
Commissioner Yeh that whatever representations had been
made to him there was no doubt that the lorcha Arrow
lawfully bore the British flag.
Is that the open, straightforward method of dealing
which should characterise British officials in our distant
colonies, and particularly in treating with a nation pecu-
liarly suspicious ? Is it upon grounds like these, which
are contradicted by his own letters to Mr. Parkes, that
this country should be dragged into a destructive and
expensive war? Now, my lords, what is the defence to
this case ? Sir J. Bowring says it is quite true that the
licence of the Arrow had expired, but the Chinese did not
know that. What, because your adversary may be igno-
rant, are you to suppress facts, and, acting as if you had a
claim, which you know you have not, to hold out a hostile
threat to another nati.in for their infraction of a treaty
which you know they have never infringed at all? The
Chinese authorities didn't know it. No; but Sir John
Bowring knew it, and Mr. Consul Parkes knew it; and if
Mr. Consul Parkes had done 114 duty the Chinese Go-
vernment ought to have known it; because when that
vessel arrived and deposited her register in the hands of
Mr. Parkes he was bound to notify that -she had come in
with her sailing licence expired, and he ought not to have
given her a sailing licence again until she had applied for
a fresh register, which she might have done during any
part of the time that she was lying in the harbour of
Canton, because Hong Kong was within twelve hours'
distance by steam. I therefore sum up this part of the
case thus :—That the vessel to all intents and purposes
was a Chinese vessel, Chinese owned and Chinese manned,
and was in no respects a British vessel under any interpre-
tation which could have been put upon it by either of
the parties to the treaty at the time of making the
treaty ; that if she ever had been entitled to protection,
that protection had been forfeited by her own act, by
the cessation of the register and the infringement of the
ordinance ; but that the ordinance itself was a piece of
waste paper, null and void, and that the register was
utterly valueless, giving no claim to the character which
was impudently assumed of being a British vessel. (Hear,
hear.)

Passing on to the claim of British subjects to free
admission into the city of Canton, he admitted that
the treaty of 1840 conferred that right; and, al-
though it bad been entered into under considerable
duresse on the part of the Chinese authorities, he
bad no doubt that throughout this part of the trans-
action our plenipotentiary had taken a correct view,
while the Chinese officers had been altogether in
error. The only question that could arise was as to
the policy of pressing the right at that particular
moment. The noble earl read a variety of extracts
from the papers now before Parliament, including
despatches from Sir G. Bonham, of 20th July, 1848,
despatches from Lord Palmerston, Oct. 7, and Dec.
30, 1848, to show that in 1849 the Government, upon
the authority of Sir G. Bonham, came to the con-
clusion that it was not expedient to press the claim
for admission to Canton, and be quoted a proclama.•
tion, issued by Sir George in 1849, prohibiting
British subjects from entering that city. The noble
earl argued that the reason assigned by the Chinese
authorities for refusing admission had always been
the same—a fear of collision between the halves
and the English, and that such reason was not a
mere pretext, but was shared by Sir G. Bonham
himself. In 1819 a new actor appeared upon the
stage in the person of Sir John Bowring, who was
possessed with a monomania on the subject of his
own admission to Canton, and who would not con-
sider any sacrifice too great to effect that object:—

It is amusing to observe that, while the Chinese com-
missioners are always looking forward to a more favour.
able season, and while they never find that that favourable
season and fortunate hour has arrived, there are no possi-
ble circumstances or combination of circumstances which,
to the mind of Sir John 13owring, are not favourable for
the agitation of this question. At one time it is because
unbroken tranquillity reigns throughout the whole country;
at another because there are disorders, disturbances, and
revolutions, and the Chinese authorities would require oar
sanction and support for their defence. At one time it is
because they are quiet, at another because they are turbu-
lent ; but every• time is, according to Dr. Bowling, the very
best time fur pressing this eternal chum upon which he
rests the maintenance of peace between the Chinese and
ourselves.

Lard Derby then came to the correspondence
which ensued upon the seizure of the lorcha, and
apart from the merits of the question observed that
there was much reason to complain of the manner
in which this correspondence had been conducted by
the British officials ; while the tone of the Chinese
was throughout forbearing, courteous, and gentle-
manlike, that of our representatives was, with hardly
an exception, menacing, disrespectful, and arrogant.
This condemnation Lord Derby admitted to be
severe, but he supported it by numerous references
to the correspondence between Sir J. Bowring, Mr.
Consul Parkes, and Commissioner Yeh. He con-