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

200

the English flag. Now, mark what he says—" The vessel
had no protection, but the Chinese do not know this ; for
God's sake do not whisper it to them." ( Hear.) lie
persevered, too, for he said in effect, "We know the
Chinese have not been guilty of any violation of treaty,
but we will not tell them so ; we will insist upon a repara-
tion, and a return of the men they have seized in a par-
ticular form." If the men were not returned in the form,
what was to be the remedy 9 Why, to seize a junk, a war
junk; if that was not sufficient seize more, until we com-
pelled them to submit, although we knew they had the
right on their side, and we had no justice on ours—
(Hear)—and although the officer directing those measures
was the representative of the Sovereign of Great Britain,
whose honour he was bound to protect, but which he was
compromising by plunging into a war. Was there ever
conduct more abominable, more flagrant, in which, I will
not say more fraudulent, bat what is equal to fraud in
our country, more false pretence has been put forward by
a public man in the service of the British Government?
It was clear that Sir J. Bowring had acted through-
out upon one fixed idea—viz., his own general re-
ception into Canton, as immediately after the rupture
he lost sight of the case of the Arrow, and confined
himself solely to demanding the fulfilment of the
terms of the treaty of 184:2. The course of violence,
however, which he had taken was the least likely to
lead to that freer and more friendly intercourse
which it was his desire to obtain, and thus, by adopt-
ing it, he had defeated his own wishes. Lord Lynd-
hurst, in conclusion, contended it was clear that from
the very first moment at which Sir J. Bowring was
appointed to his present office his great ambition
was to procure an entrance for English traders
within the walls of Canton, in spite of the failure of
all his predecessors to accomplish that object, and to
this was to be attributed all the deplorable results
that had ensued. He heartily concurred in the
sentiments expressed by his noble friend (Lord
Derby), and would cordially support his motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR complained that Lord
Derby and Lord Lyndhurst, had both assumed what
he denied was the fact,—that the Chinese authori
ties had given no occasion for complaint. The
question was whether, there being a treaty by which
the Chinese were bound not to seize suspected
Criminals on board English ships without the inter-
vention of the British Consuls, the Chinese authori-
ties had a right to board the Arrow, and take away
the crew. There was overwhelming evidence to
show that the British flag was flying at the time,
and therefore between us and China this was a
British ship. The Chinese might have complained,
if they had thought fit, that a register had been im •
properly granted, but th?y had no right whatever,
according to international law, to board the Arrow,
and thus themselves to decide the question of its
nationality. The learned lord gave the following
definition of a British ship from an interned )nal
point of view :

If the British Government authorises a ship to go into
a foreign port and carry the British flag, as hetween us
and the foreign country, this is certainly a British ship.
Earl GREY could not conceive any doctrine more
dangerous than that subordinate officers, who might
not be persons of easy temper, might be allowed to
resort to offensive measures without reference to the
Home Government. The navigation laws clearly
set forth what were British ships, but those laws in
the case of China were modified by the treaty ; and
it was important to inquire whether the Arrow was a
British ship in the full intent and meaning of the
term :

In 1814 considerable alterations were made in the nevi-
gallon laws, and the statute was divided into several parts.
Section 17 provided that the second part of the act should
apply to the whole of her Majesty's dominions everywhere,
and it then went on to describe in clear and distinct terms
what shall be deemed to he a British ship. That clause
is followed by another, which declares that any ship any
hoisting British colours, and not owned by persons
described in the act, is ipso facto forfeit to her Majesty.
Am I now to be told that the enactment of the British
Parliament is to be overruled in the river of Canton,
where Hong Kong has no mere j trisdiction than it has in
Jamaica, by an ordinance of Hong Song? There is a
question of public policy and public principle of the
greatest moment involved in this matter. Parliament pre-
serves ;he right to decide what are British ships and what
are net. It is an imperial right, and I ask, can anything
be conceived which is more distinctly and more properly
an imperial right? By hoisting the. British flag vessels
become entitled to British protection, and we may be in•
volved in difficulties of the most serious nature with
foreign nations if that power be improperly exercised.
(Hear, hear.)
He maintained that the Arrow was not a British
vessel in any sense of the term, and such, from
first to last, had been the argument of the Chinese :
I am afraid that under any fair construction of the
treaty the Arrow was not a British ship; and let me point
out to your lordships that from firm to last this is the
argument of \eh. On the 14th of October he repeats
that statement. lie always returns to that point, and
never admits that an itifrastion of the treaty hail been
committed. "The whole question amounts to this—a
lorcha built Sy Chinese purchased a British register, but
that doss not make her a British vessel." How does Sir
John Bowring, how do the British authorities meet this?
is there any argument to prose that by paying ts o fees of

THE PRESS.

twenty-five dollars each a Chinese vessel can purchase a
register and then become a British ship—any attempt to
show that, according to a (air understanding of the treaty,
this ship is to be considered as having been under British
protection? Nothing of the kind. All that we find is a
mere naked assertion, a blustering assertion, that she is a
British ship, and that the Chinese must apologise. I say
a blustering assertion, and unfortunately an assertion
directly in the teeth not only of the truth, but of what Sir
J. Bowring by his own showing knew at the time to be
true, because the noble lord opposite ( Earl Derby) has
shown that before Le wrote to the Chinese authorities he
had written to Consul Parkes saying that this lords, was
not entitled to British pretectim. ( Hear, hear.)
The Duke of ARGYLL vindicated the conduct of the
Government, and on the motion of the Earl of
CARNARVON the debate, at twelve o'clock, was ad-
journed until Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM.
Sir J. WALMSLEY moved for a select committee to
consider and report upon the most practical means
for lessening the existing inequalities in our repre-
sentative system, and for extending to the unen-
franchised that share of political power to which they
might be justly entitled. Comparing the counties
and boroughs together, and then counties with
counties, he showed that great inequality existed in
our representative system. In the latter case,
whether as regarded property, population, number of
houses or number of electors, twenty-four counties
and divisions had eighty six members more than
they were entitled to, and ten other counties had
twenty less than their relative proportion ; while, in
the former case, twenty-nine large and rapidly in-
creasing towns were totally unrepresented. But the
paramount evil was this, that with 28,000,000 of
population we bad only 1,1)00,000 electors.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposed the present motion on
the ground that it was so indefinite and general in
its character that he believed the cause of reform
would be damaged rather than advanced by the ap-
pointment of the committee.
Mr. STAFFORD, who opposed the present motion,
reviewed the recent course of the Government in
relation to an extended franchise, and called on them
to declare when they expected the fitting season
would arrive for a comprehensive measure of reform
which they could support in a body.
Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Digby Seymour, and Mr.
Warren opposed the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON, remarking upon tho very
general objections of the Liberal party, said he re-
sisted the motion on the /argument against Sir J.
Walmsley's proposal, that it was of too great Impor-
tance and ciC too wide a range, and involved too
many material interests, to be thrown to the chance
decision of a committee. He thought that those who
brought the subject before Parliament should put it
definitely in the shape of a bill.
The house then divided ; the numbers were—
For the motion 73
Against it
Majority
CIVIL SERVICE IN INDIA.
Mr. V. SMITH, in answer to Mr. Deasy, said no
reduction had taken place, was contemplated, or
could take place, in the number of appointments in
'the civil service in India, open to public competition,
as the number was fixed by Act of Parliament.
STATUTE CONSOLIDATION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAT, in answer to Mr. A.
Pellatt, said that the statutes relating to masters and
workmen had been consolidated by the Statute law
Commissioners. The consolidation bill was now
under the revision of that body, and he believed it
would be brought in and laid upon the table. He
Was not aware that there was any intention on the
part of the Government to introduce any other
measure on the subject..
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. CowrEn, in reply to Mr. Palk, said he had
given notice of a bill to amend the Public Health
Act, and he proposed to ask leave to introduce it on
the :nth of March. It would be the same as that
agreed to by the select committee, with various alter-
ations, suggested by further deliberations, but such
as he did not think the committee would be disposed
to dispute.