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

THE PRESS.

believed to bo untrue. The losses which would
result to this country and India from this war of Dr.
Bowing it was almost impossible to estimate. All
our influences in China would be overturned—our
efforts towards the conversion of the people entirely
neutralised. How, indeed, could we attempt to
teach them a religion of benevolence and humanity
when our Minister was breaking the command-
ments—committing murder in an unjust war—not
telling the truth of his neighbour, and gratify-
ing his covetousness at the expense of the suf-
ferings of mankind? He hoped the decision of
their lordships' house would protect them from an
act like this, an act which was at once a folly and a
crime.

--------
Earl GnaNvn.LE, earnestly deprecating the tone
adopted by the last speaker as most unjust to a use-
ful public servant, and unworthy the dignity of a
grave and most serious discussion, on the part of
the Government accepted the entire responsibility of
Dr. Bowring's proceedings :
The Government, not hastily, but after due considera-
tion—after weighing the facts of the case—after having
consulted as to the legality of the acts and the future con-
sequences of disowning whet has taken place, have come
to the resolution of entirely supporting their subordinate
abroad, and in so doing they take upon themselves the
whole responsibility of t he acts of the three English repre-
sentatives of the Government at Canton.

Lord Granville then proceeded to review the whole
question of the seizure of the Arrow, with the cir-
cumstances attending it, maintaining that the Eng-
lish flag was flying at the time she was taken and
was hauled flown by the Chinese, and that the con-
duct of Sir John Bowring had been guided through-
out by the strict law of the Colonial Ordinance and
the supplementary treaty of 1h43. Had he acted
otherwise, or by other rules, what would then have
been said ? Would not the Government have been
charged with following the principles of the Man-
chester school, and preferring the paltry interests of
comme►ce to the honour of the British flag ?
The Bishop of OXFORD condemned the conduct of
Sir John Bowring in the strongest terms, and
reprobated the conduct of a great Christian nation
like England spreading the horrors of war among a
weak and unoffendi,ig people. He entreated the
house to pause ere it gave the weight of its great
authority to support an act so unjust and wrong as
this. It' they did so let them recollect that they
were going against a Power which took its own time
for vindicating eternal justice, and which never
allowed a wrong to pass uuavenged, and a Power
which could find, if need were, in the very weakness
of China sufficient elements to abase and rebuke the
lawless oppression of this country.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared
for the motion—

Content—Present .. .. .. 53
Proxies .. .. .. 57

-110
Not Content—Present .. .. 71

Proxies

Majo►ity against the motion
Their lordships then adjourned.

75
-140

HOUSE OF COM MONS.—THratsDAY.
HOSTILITIES WITH CHINA.

Mr. COBDEN moved the following resolution !

That this house has heard with concern of the conflicts
which have occurred between the British and Chinese
authorities in the Canton river; and, without expressing
an opinion as to the extent to which the Government of
China may have afforded this country cause of complaint
respecting the non fulfilment of the treaty of 1843, this
house considers that the papers which have been laid upon
the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the vio-
lent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the
Arrow ; and that a select committee he appointed to in-
quire into the state of our commercial relations with China.
Adverting to the extent to which the national con-
science, he said, had been moved upon this question,
and the large amount of sympathy felt with reference
to the object of his motion, and premising that he
had no motive but to arrive at a just decision, Mr.
Cobden commenced with a brief narrative of the facts
consequent upon the boarding of the lorcha Arrow,
ou the Bth of October, up to the date of the last ad •
vices ; and asked the house to inquire how all this
devastation and warfare began, and who were the
authors, and be asked it, he said, in defence of our
own honour. We had never before acquired the cha-
racter of bullies, but he had observed of late a ten-
dency to adopt one policy to a weak and another to a
strong power. He co itrasted the conduct of the
British authorities at Hong Kong with that which
would have been pursued, he said, had the Govern-
ment we dealt with been at Washington and the
transaction bad taken place at Charleston. lie cited
the opinion expressed by Lord Lyndhurst, that upon
the principles of international law the Chinese
Governor was right with reference to the Arrow,
which was in no respect a British vessel ; and he
urged that the whole proceeding was illegal on our
part. Upon the whole, he conscientiously believed

201

that there had been a preconceived design to pick a
quarrel with the Chinese, for which the whole world
would cry shame upon us. With respect to the
papers recently laid before the house, he
looked upon them as a garbled record of trum-
pery complaints against the Chinese. It was an
insult, he said, to bring down such a book in ordt r
to make out a case for Lord Clarendon. On the
other hand, he read letters from Sir John Davis and
Admiral Cochrane testifying to the civility and inof-
fensive habits of the Chinese and to the overbearing
conduct of our own countrymen in China, with whom
Sir John said he found it more difficult to deal than
with the Chinese; and Mr. Cobden suggested rea-
sons why this was likely to be the case—that Eng-
lishmen carried with them a haughty demeanour
and an inflexible bearing towards the natives of other
countries. He strongly condemned the vast preten-
sions put forth by mercantile men in England, who
demanded concessions from China in terms which
he characterised as downright selfish violence. As
to the admission of foreigners into Canton, he was
of opinion that in the treaty of 1843 it was contem-
plated that foreigners should have free access to
Canton ; but it would be found from the despatches
of Sir George Bonham and Lcrd Palmerston in this
blue-book that there were the best possible grounds
for not persevering in this demand, the Cantonese
being fierce, ungovernable, and hostile to English-
men. In the last place, Mr. Cobden contended that
Sir John Bowring had not only violated the principles
of international law, but had acted contrary to his
in-tructions and even to express directions from his
Government, and that this miserable squabble might
lead to complications with other nations and plunge
us into an international war.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said there was one fact of
importance on the face of the papers—namely, that
these transactions had taken place, not in an obscure
corner of the world, but before the great community
of merchants, who, he affirmed, had been libelled by
the language employed towards them by Mr. Cobden.
The French and American merchants had coincided
with ours in their view of the conduct of the Chinese
authorities, and Mr. Labouchere read a letter from
the United States' Chief Superintendent of Trade,
condemning the character and proceedings of the
Canton authorities. He believed, he added, that ft r
some time past the relations of the Chinese autho-
rities at Canton with every European Government
had become so thoroughly unsatisfactory as to be at
length absolutely intolerable, and that the general
opinion was that, at the price of a temporary inter-
ruption of commercial transactions, the Canton
authorities should be restrained from setting aside
treaty obligations and committing acts of violence.
Mr. Labouchere insisted upon the British character
of the lorcha, and that, when the outrage was com-
mitted, the Governor Yeti knew ho was doing wrong.
He denied that the British functionaries bad evinced
any want of forbearance, and that Consul Parkes
had, as Mr. Cobden alleged, endeavoured to pick a
quarrel with the Chinese ; his proceedings, on the
contrary, had been gentle and moderate. As to the
right of entry into Canton, this had been conceded
by treaty, and, although it bad been postponed from
time to time, it had never been abandoned by the
British Government, and he was not satisfied that it
was an improper step on the part of Sir John Bow-
ring, under the circumstances, to take this oppor-
tunity to press this stipulation. We were not, he
observed, at war with the Court of Pekin, but with
the local Government at Canton, and he hoped that
the result of these hostilities would be to place the
relations of Europe with China upon a safer and
more satisfactory footing.
Sir B. LYTTON did not think that Mr. Lsbouchere
had succeeded in giving a very satisfactory reply to
the powerful arguments of Mr. Cobden. Mr. La-
bouchere had failed to prove that by international
law, since the Treaty ef Nankin, the regulations of
the Government of Hong Kong could confer upon
the lorcha a British character. Neither colonial
ordinances nor Acts of Parliament could have the
effect of international law upon other nations :

I say that this vessel, belonging to Chines& subjects,
manned by Chinese, and emplo3ed in Chinese waters, did
not, at the date of the treaty, belong to the English
nation. If you chose to make it so by a local ordinance,
Ihat might bind your own subjects, but would not acquire
the force of international law, and would not bind the
Chinese, if they had never agreed to it, which they never
did. This principle is clearly laji down by Wheaton' and
other writers on international law ; and it follows front
this, as clearly as one problem of Euclid follows from
another, that if after a treaty has been concluded, you, as
one of the contracting parties, alter your existing law so
as to affect the Chinese, the other contracting parties, your
alterations will be binding oh your own sitbjects, but that
it will require the legislative power of China to give these
laws force and effect in that country.
But assuming that the lorcha was an English vessel,
granting that the British colours were flying at the
time a notorious pirate was seized on board, was the
outrage committed so gross as to justify so terrible a
revenge ?

Obser►e. it is not a question of who waa right and who
was wrong, but whether the Chinese were so outrageously

' •

202

in the wrong as to justify the terrible punishment we have
inflicted. Englishmen are not the Dracos of legislation.
Every offence with us is not punishable by death. Are we
mild philosophers in our domestic legislation, and ruth-
less exterminators in the enforcement of points of interna-
tional law ? It would be a monstrous inconsiateucy if, while
we ate mitigating, and have for the last thirty years been
mitigating, our criminal code, and dealing mildly with
offenders who prey upon the very vitals of the State, we
should wage a ruthless war—no, not a war, but a whole-
sale massacre on our helpless customers at s remote corner
of the globe. And what for? Why to maintain a trim-
pery ordinance which our own Board of Trade deems rather
questionable, and which is at direct variance with the orders
of our own Imperial Parliament.

The deliberate stvement of Sir John Bowring to
Yeh, that the Arrow was entitled to our protection,
in the face of his admission to Mr. Parses that she
was not, Sir Edward Lytton animadverted upon in
strong terms :

Why, sir, here we have not only the telling of a lie, but
tly! suppression of the truth, and this contemptible excuse
for a great crime Lord Clarendon, a Minister of the Crown,
does not hesitate to re•echo and Approve. In the mogul.
lo {vent appeal with which the Colonial Secretary eon-
chided his l,e•rorat.ion he talked loftily of vindicating the
h mour of the nation. The houour of the nutlet, ! Sir,
p evarication and falsehood have nothing to do with the
h mom of the English nation; they appertain rather to
t►e honour of an Old Bailey attorney, We have heard a
g eat deal about the dissimulation and duplicity of Russia.
I think, air, Russia will chuckle at our dealings with
C iina. Here is a Minister of the Crown, the austere
n Iptiittor of the Paris Conference, the rabliker of Rus
Sian duplicity, aiding and abetting in what he may call a
diplomatic suppression of the truth.
The language used by Consul Parkes in his correspon-
dence with Commissioner Yeh he censured as repug-
nant to the rules of diplomatic intercourse, and he
condemned with vehemence the hostilities carried on
by our commanders upon the miserable plea of an
alleged affront to our flag, for the refusal of an entry
int ) Canton was not a tenable ground, it being a
question whether the Emperor of China himself
could practically enforce that article of the treaty, or,
if he could, whether the effect would not be perni-
cious to his people. One of the highest authorities
on international law had said that when a treaty,
concluded with upright intentions, becomes difficult
o" ref ti!mont. nothing could be mots honourable,
snore praiseworthy, or more conformable to the histo.
rte, oi I.,tyrtiational treaties than to relax the terms
of such treaty as far as possible without exposing
yourselves to danger. How much more, then, was
it our interest to do so in such a case as this, where
we run the risk of considerable danger and loss? Or
could we have any more unhappy occasion for
attempting to enforce our treaty than the present,
when at the very moment we have been bombarding
the forts, shelling the city, incensing the people, and
leaving every man who has lost a son or• a brother
thirsting for revenge ?
Mr. L. DAVIES opposed the motion, which was
nominally for a committee to inquire into our com-
mercial relations with China, but really it went, he
said, to assail the whole of our movements in the
war, to paralyse our efforts, and to encourage the
enemy.

Sir J. RAMSDEN observed, that the three points in
this question put by Sic B. Lytton were short and
clear, and mu,t be decided by the evidence. First,

was the Arrow a legally registered British vessel,
owned by a British subject, and entitled to British
protection; secondly, was the boarding of the Arrow
aid the forcible abstraction of part of her crew a
violation of the treaty ; and, thirdly, were the pro
ceedings of the British Consul in demanding an
apology and reparation, and, when denied, adopting
strong measures, justifiable under the circumstances ?
Reasoning upon the facts, he resolved the first two
questions in the affirmative without hesitation ; and,

With regard to the last, although ho deplored the
violent measures resorted to, and the destruction of
life and property, he found no evidence of a single
hasty or ill considered act, or of one angry expres-
sion on the part of the British officials.
Sir T. HERBERT supported the motion, expressing
his regret at the resort to extreme measures without
the pre:ious sanction of the Home Government.
Sir E. PEtinv likewise supported the motion. The
motion, he observed, raised two questions—whether
the British authorities were right in their demand
upon the Chinese, and, if they hail right on their
aide, whether they were justified in resorting to ex-
treme measures? Applying principles of law to the
facts, he argued that the Arrow never could claim the
rights of a British vessel ; but, assuming that he was
wrong in his law, he maintained that the hostilities
were not justifiable.
Mr. UREGSON supported the Government.
Lord J. HUSEET.T, said, he had listened with great
attention and anxiety to the statement of Mr. La-
bouchere, hoping that the ambiguity which seemed
to rest upon the policy of the Government might be
dispelled, and some view might be afforded of a dis•
tinct policy to which Parliament might look for
fixture security. In all these respects the speech of
Mr. Labouchere had disappointed him. The ques-
tiqa he considered under these three heads—tirst;

THE PRESS.

the nationality of the Arrow ; second, the right to
enter Canton ; third, the policy which the Govern-
ment intended to pursue, and the object at which
they aimed in hostilities. Neither of the two provo-
cations, he contended, afforded a sufficient ground for
the extreme measures resorted to, which were not a
proper mode of settling such a great question ; and
he thought her Majesty's Government ought to have
considered that the British officials had committed a
serious offence, having, without sufficient cause, put
in jeopardy amicable relations with a great and
populous empire, and proceeded to the solution of a
question which a Secretary of State had expressly
declared should not he decided without reference to
the Government at home :

What, however, was the language addressed by Lord
Clarendon to Sir John Bowring and Sir Michael Seymour?
On the 10th of January he informed Sir J. Bowring that
" Her Majesty's Government entirely approve the course
which has been adopted by Sir M. Seymour and yourself."
Sir, I do think that this is a very serious matter; T do
think that the giving their approbation in these few words,
without explicit instructions, without saying what was to
be done, without any notice of the assumption of authority,
was neglecting the duty, the solemn duty, which was
imposed on her Majesty's Government.
And where was the affair to end ? He feared that,
in the disorganised stato of China, asocial revolution
might be produced, and it might cease to be a
country in which commercial operations could be
advantageously carried on. The worst part of the
case was that Sir John Bowring, while he declared
that the vessel had lost all right to British protec-
tion, set up that claim against the Chinese Commis
sioner, and required. an apology to the British flag,
as having been rightfully used. Much had been
said about the prestige of this country, but he had
no wish to see its prestige maintained separated from
character, honour, and reputation :
We have learned much of late—a great deal too much,
I think—of the prestige of England. We used to hear of
the character, of the reputation, of the honour of England.
I trust, sir, that the character, the reputation, and the
honour of this country are dear to us all—( cheers )—but, if
the prestige of England is to be separate from those
qualities, if it is to be separate from the character, from
the reputation, and from the honour of our country, then
I, for one, have no wish to maintain it. (Cheers.) To
those who argue, as I have heard some argue—it is true
we have a bad case ; it is true we were in the wrong, it is
true we have committed injustice, but we must persevere
in that wrong; we must continue to act unjustly, or the
Chinese will think that we are afraid, I say, as has been
said before, "Be just and fear not." Whatever we lose in
prestige, of whit i I do not presume to be a judge, I am
convinced that the character and the honour of this
country will be raised higher by such a policy. Never will
England stand higher in the world's estimation than when
it can be said that though troublesome and meddlesome
officials prostitute her arms and induce a brave admiral to
commence hostilities which never ought to have been
begun, yet the House of Commons, representing her
people, have indignantly declared that they will be no
parties to such injustice; and that neither for commercial
advantages, nor for political advann g !s, nor for any other
immediate advantages to their country, will they consent
to stain that honour which, after all, has been and must
he the sure foundation of her greatness. (Loud and con•
tinned cheering.)

Mr. Lowe observed that the argument that we
could not by any municipal law give a right to
Chinese subjects against their own Government
proved too much, for the result would be that the
greater portion of the British ships would not be
within the treaty. He contended that the ordinance
under which the lorcha was registered was legal in
its inception; and as to the question whether the
Chinese had viclated the treaty, what an outcry would
have been raised, he said, if the British Consul had,
upon a paltry quibble, repudiated the British charac-
ter of the vessel ! The real question, he contended,
was not one of legality, but of the animus of the
Chinese authorities, and it was impossible to acquit
them of a bad animus in the matter. Much as he
deplored the consequences, it appeared to him that
upon those authorities, not upon the British Govern-
ment or its officials, rested the responsibility.
On the motion that the debate be adjourned,

Mr. Ginsom stated that it had been the intention of
Mr. Cobden to submit his motion in two distinct
resolutions, but, through some mistake, its form had
been altered, and it had been put as one resolution.
After some discussion, the motion was altered to
its original form, and the first part of the motion was
moved as one of the resolutions.

The debate was then adjourned until the ensuing
day.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
TUESDAY.

Mr. T. Duscomne—that on the lilth of March he should call
attention to the grieve. ices of certain petitioners connected with
the Land 'frausport Corps, who had served in the Crimea, and
move that the petitions be referred to a select committee.

Mr. H. [teaseLey—that shortly after Easter he should. call
attention to the necessity of protecting voters at polling booths.
Mr. READLAM —that nn an early day he should move resolu-
tions to the effect that the income tax should not be continued
for more than another year, and that it should be left to Parlia-
ment then to consider whether it should be continued for a
longer time. He should make 4 /40t1011 to that afoot in cow•
MEW° of wile and wean”.

SATURDAY,

Lord J. Rosszr.t.—that in committee of ways and means he
should move amendments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
proposals, to the effect that the tea duty should be is. 4d. in the
yearsioST-SS and 1856-54., and that it should be reduced to is. to
1080.