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

THE PRESS.

Reprisals. And what was the difference between reprisals
and war? Reprisals were made manente pace, but war
introduced a totally different state of things, and he ven-
tured to say that reprisals and not war were the proper
remedy for the wrung which was alleged to have been com-
mitted.
He contended also that the papers before the house
showed that full satisfaction had been afforded, and
that it was indefensible upon any principle of law,
of justice, or of humanity to make war for the punish-
ment of a nation apart from reparation :
He begged attention to an authority upon this point,
which would not be disputed. In the famous answer to
the Prussian mettorbil, which Montesyneu said was never
replied to, this passage occurred :

The law of nations, founded upon justice, equity, convenience,
and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage, does
not allow of reprisals except in case of violent injuries, directed
or supported by the State, and justice absolutely denied in re
minims dubid by all the tribunals, and afterwards by the prince.
The question arose, then, was this a violence sup-
ported by the State, and for which all reparation had
been denied? The Attorney. General had deprecated
the attacks made upon Sir J. Bowring for not under-
standing a question of law respecting which Lord
Lyndhurst and Lord Wensleydale were at variance;
but did the house reflect upon the position of the
Chinese? If the (point of law was so doubtful that
the most eminent lawyers of England differed in
opinion as to its construction, in God's name, and in
the name of humanity, said the hon. member, why
was Canton bombarded? He contended that our
proceedings were wholly indefensible :

What were the admitted facts of the case ? Here was a
Chinese-built, a Chinese bought, and a Chinese•owned
vessel, having a pirate on board, without a register cog-
nisable by the English courts of justice, and with a British
flag, which had been purchased for 1,000 dols. She was
boarded by the Chinese authorities, who took off ten of the
crew, but neither touched the property in the ship nor
injured any of the persons who were on board.
After this, upon the representation of the British
authorities, the men were sent back, and full expla-
nations offered by Yeh : reparation was in fact made.
And would any lawyer maintain that under the cir-
cumstances reprisals were justificatory? He could
see no evidence of mala fides, or of intentional insult,
that could justify hostilities ; and yet the Britisl,.
Plenipotentiary, being of opinion that the honour of
the country was not suffi6ently appeased, empowered
the admiral to bombard one of the most populous
cities of the world :

He had refrained from citing authorities for every posi-
tion he had laid down ; but there was one authority which
he would read. It was the expression of opinion against
war by one of the most eminent men and greatest urists—
the most learned Lord Chancellor Bacon. He said :

The cause of war ought to be just, and the justice of the case
ought to be evident, not obscure—not scrupulous.
And be gave this admirable reason :

For, by the consent of laws in capital cases, the evidence
must be full and clear. Then, if it must be so where one man's
life is in question, what shall we say of war which is a sentence
of death upon many.

Was the evidence in this case not obscure and not scrupu-
lous? Was the evidence which divided the judges in the
House of Lords so clear as to justify a passing of sentence
of death upon many ? If it was not, they must divide for
the motion of the hon. member for the West Hiding He
could not but remember that there was an order of men in
the other house whose mission was peace upon earth.
(Loud and continued cheers.) He could not but help re•
membering that which, perhaps, the house had forgotten,
that by the order of the ecclesiastical law, and by the rule
of the other House of Parliament, they were not allowed to
vote on a question of blood where one man's life was at
issue. (Loud cheers.) He could not help remembering
that in the case of Lord Cardigan they left the house in a
body, because the law said that they should not vole on
questions affecting human life. (Cheers.) What apology,
then, could be found for those who had recorded a vote
which would amount to a sentence of death upon many ?
The only conclusion to which he could arrive on the pre-
mines before him was, that by the law of his own country,
by international law, and by all those questions of human
justice that should guide our conduct among men, this war
with China was impolitic, unjust, and unblest in its con-
tinuance. (Loud cheers.)

Sir G. GREY, in opposing the motion, entered into
an energetic vindication of the British representa-
tives in China. He described the services and bore
testimony to the talents displayed in their several
departments by Consul Parkes, Admiral Seymour,
and Sir J. Bowring. Adverting in detail to the late
proceedings at Canton, he vindicated the course
adopted by the authorities on the spot, declaring that
the Home Government, upon a deliberate review of
the circumstances and in consideration of all the im-
portant interests which might have been compro-
mised by any symptom of weakness or indecision,
had given their cordial approbation to the acts of the
commissioner at Hong Kong and his colleagues, and
were ready to assume the full responsibility for the
consequences that had ensued. Defending the con-
duct of Sir J. Bowring at the expense of Admiral
Seymour, the Home Secretary attempted to
show, by references to the published despatches,
that every transaction accomplished during the late
disturbance had been undertaken by common consent
of all the functionaries on the spot, and after fre-
quent conferences with Mr. Parkes and Sir Michael

221

Seymour. The whole charge against the commis-
sioner had, he maintained, been founded either on
misarprehension or misrepresentation.
Mr. ROBERTSON, speaking with the experience of a
lengthened residence in China, pointed out that as
the Chinese were only permitted to own and sail
junks, there could have been no mistake on their part
as to the foreign nationality of the lorcha. Then arose
the question of animus; and, from his experience of
the Chinese authorities, he was convinced that the
insult was premeditated. Why, their very act sup-
ported this view. One man on board was suspected
as the father of a pirate, and so they seize the entire
crew, with two exceptions ! Mr. Robertson then
gave several instances of the overbearing brutality to
Europeans of the Cantonese, irvisted upon the right
of entry—not because it would benefit us much, but
because the exclusion degraded us in the eyes of the
Chinese—and finally implored the house to support
Sir John Bowring, for the sake of uur present posi-
tion and future relations with the Cninese.

Sir J. PAKINGTON thought Sir G. Grey had been
altogether unsuccessful in his attempt to defend Sir
John Bowring. He regretted that the Government
did not repudiate the acts of Sir John and his co.
otf►cials, and at once recal them ; had heard, he
said, no reason assigned for the approbation they
had received, except the necessity of upholding
servants of the Crown ; and he protested against
the doctrine that they should be supported at all
risks. Party speaking had been much deprecated
in the course of this debate, and the Opposition had
been accused of strong party feeling upon this ques-
tion. This imputation was most unjust, though he
was ready to ack'►owledge that in the course of this
debate speeches were made which he, for one, heard
with great regret :

The hon. and learned member for Devonport stated that,
in obedience to his convictions, he should support the
motion of my hon. friend the member for the West
Riding, but if the motion had proceeded from this side of
the house he should have given a different vote. An hon.
friend of mine, the member for West Norfolk, has made a
very opposite declaration. He says he concurs in the
views expressed by the hon. member for the West Riding.
He sees the force of this motion, but he shall be governed
I.v considerations altogether extraneous to the subject of
debate before us, and, under the influence of totally dif-
ferent feelings, he shall vote against the motion of the
hon. member for the West Riding.
Mr. BENTINCK : I beg pardon. What I said was, T
should be guided by other considerations than the words of
the motion. I never said T should be guided by other con-
siderations upon the question before the house. (Hear,
hear.) _ _ .

Sir J. PAKINGTON : My hon friend cannot deny that he
stated he felt the force and justice of the motion, and be
has now repeated that he shall be guided in his vote by
other considerations. I mean no disrespect to either the
hon. and learned member for Devonport or my hon.
friend the member for West Norfolk, when I say that I hear
such declarations with the deepest regret, and that I think
such declarations can only tend to lower the character of
this house. (Cheers.) But when the hon. and learned
Attorney• General or the Secretary of State for the Colonies
says that those who are opposing the Government are in-
fluenced and guided by party considerations, I think a
more unjust or more unfounded charge was never made.
Declining, like Sir G. Grey, to discuss the legal
points, but assuming that the lorcha was a British
vessel, he believed, he said, that the verdict of the
world would condemn the revenge taken for the act
of the Chinese authorities as unmeasured and ex-
cessive :

The Secretary of State for the Home Department has
this evening told the house that we have borne hardly on
Sir J. Bowring, and treated him with harshness and un•
fairness; but I entreat the house to reflect that the right
hon. gentleman never touched on this point. (Hear,
hear.) Sir J. Bowring was charged with falsehood, or the
most barefaced contradictions, and if his character is to
stand well before the world, it is absolutely necessary that
the matter should be explained. (Hear.) The right hon.
gentleman the Home Secretary, while complaining that Sir
J. Bowring had been treated badly, never even adverted
to that accusation. ( Hear.) lam sorry to say that .h
accusations against Sir J. Bowring are not limited to ih s
instance. A question arose some two or three years ago
about the collection of the duties at Shanghai, after the riot
which had occurred there. Sir J. Bawring had occasion
to interfere with respect to the collection of these duties.
He was in correspondence with the Foreign office in this
country, and was charged by the Chamber of Commerce at
Shanghai, and the charge was transmitted to this country,
with having deliberately misrepresented the instructions he
received from the Foreign•ofce, and thereby obtaining the
consent of the merchants at Shanghai to an arrangement
to which otherwise they would not have given their con-
sent. I hold in my hand a report of an interview which in
1854 the East India and China Association had with Lord
Clarendon, and I find in it this statement:—

Mr. Gregson read to his lordship a resolution this day passed,
to the effect that SR John Bowring's proceedings had lost him
the confidence of the merchants engaged in the China trade ; and
praying that in the approaching revision of the treaty her
Majesty's Government be represented by some person of known
experience and discretion.

Here we have a proof of the estimation in which Sir J.
Bowling was held by the mercantile body connected with
China ; and it affords ground for concluding that the Go-
vernment would have acted with more discretion if they
had not kept our interests at China so long in the hands of
Su J. Bowring. (Hear, hear.)

.222

With respect to Mr. Parkes, a good deal of praise
had been heard of him from the Home Secretary,
but he (Sir J. Pakingtou) found in Mr. Parkes'
letters to Yeh contradictions to an extent the most
dangerous and unwise :

He (Sir J. Pakington) deeply regretted to find that
throughout the whole of this correspondence there was
manifested the same pai►►ful and discreditable difference
between the conduct of the British and the Chinese autho-
rities. On the one aide were pride, arrogance, and insult,
while on the other were calmness, reasoning—(" Hear,
hear," and a langl►)—he was astonished to see one hon.
member who had been a very short time in that house,
and who was not very much accustomed to its debates,
make merry with the remarks which he had made. He
could only presume that that hon. member had not read
the papers, for if he had he would find that what he ( Sir J.
Pakington) had said was perfectly correct. The language of
Commissioner Yeh was distinguished > y calmness, by rea-
soning, but above all by moderation under the grossest in-
sults. Which of the letters written by the Chinese and British
authorities were those of a gentleman—above all, which
those of a Christian—those of the barbarian, the non-Chris-
tian, or those of him who wrote as the official of a Chris-
tian country? He (Sir J. Pakington) deeply regretted
the language which had been used during these debates as
to the conduct which we as a civilised power ought to
adopt toward Oriental States. The right hon. gentleman
the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had said that
when dealing with such States our object should be to
terrify them with ideas of our power, and a similar doctrine
was laid down by a noble earl (the Earl of Clarendon) in
another place. That noble earl had said that it was im-
portant to make the Chinese sensible of the law of force,
but he (SirJ. Pakington) would rather adopt the senti-
ment thus expressed by the noble member for the city of
London,—" I care not whether we are dealing with the
Chinese or with Europeans, depend upon the sound
maxim, 'Be just and fear not.'" He could imagine
nothing more unworthy of Englishmen than the
idea that we were to bully the weak when we thirst
not do so to the strong, and that we were to attack the un-
fortunate Chinese and destroy a peaceful town merely
because they did not choose to act according to our wishes.
(Cheers.)

As to the revival of the demand to enter Canton, Lord
Palmerston in 18-18, Lord Granville, Lord Grey, Lord
Malmesbury, and Lord Clarendon had distinctly for-
bidden the enforcement of this claim by arms with-
out the consent of the Home Government ;
while Sir George Bonham hadexpressed his dis-
tinct opinion that the indisposition of the people
of that city to receive foreigners was so great that it
could not be resisted, and it would therefore be most
imprudent to insist upon our right to enter the town.
Mr. COLLIER, in opposing the motion, insisted that
the Chinese had been guilty of violating for fifteen
years a solemn treaty—conduct which would not have
been put up with in the case of a strong power—and
they were now presuming upon our forbearance, and
trying how far they could go. tinder the treaty the
lorcha, he argued, was fully entitled to be considered
a British vessel ; an outrage upon it was committed
—the application of Consul Parkes for redress and
atonement was fair and reasonable, and the answer
of Commissioner Yeh evaded the demand without
denying the insult. If the consul had been satisfied
and proceeded no further, he and the Government
would have been generally and severely blamed. If
the house affirmed this resolution, it would amount
to a concession that we had been in the wrong from
the beginning; the Chinese Government would be
entitled to reparation, and would demand an abject
apology. By negativing the resolution, he did not
commit himself to a policy of aggression or annexa-
tion :

He merely affirmed the principle that, where treaties
had been violated and our flag insulted, it was incumbent
on us to seek redress ; that that redress should be mode‘
rate, and, being so, ought to be rigidly enforced. fle was
in favour of no more compulsion than was requisite to
obtain that reasonable end.

Sir F. THESIOF.II said it was a matter of surprise
to him that all the able and powerful minds which
had addressed themselves to the question could have
gone so completely astray, and that the acuteness
and subtlety of Sir J. Bowring himself, a gentleman
possessed of a Timid so acute and subtle that, had
he lived in the days of the school:nen, would have
procured for him the name of the "Irrefutable
Doctor," should have so completely misunderstood
the grounds of his own defence as to argue and
maintain the cause upon the supplemental treaty of
1843 instead of on the basis of the ordinance. Sir
John Bowring, in his letter to Mr. Consul Parkes,
said that it appeared on examination that the Arrow
had no right to hoist the British flag, the licence to
do so having expired, but the hon. and learned gen-
tleman the Attorney-General said that when a mer-
chant ship entered a harbour of any country those
on board conformed themselves to the law of that
country, and if there were any offenders against its
municipal laws on board it was competent for the
authorities to enter the vessel and bring them to
justice, and that the Chinese had an undoubted right
so to deal with the Arrow if it had not been for the
treaty. Now, the treaty had nothing whatever to do
with the affair. Under the treaty it was impossible
to give to vessels owned by Chinese a British register
without committing a violation of that treaty. Under

THE PRESS.'

the ordinance of 1855, Chinese residents within the
colony of Hong Kong were for the first time per-
mitted to apply for and obtain a colonial register
renewable every year. A great difference existed
between the treaty and the ordinance register. The
registration under the treaty could only be of British
ships; but a colonial registration might under the
ordinance be given to Chinese residents who were
also Crown lesses of lands :

The registration under the treaty was not a temporary
registration, for the house would observe the register was
to be delivered to the proper officer of the Custom-house,
and to be returned when the vessel sailed, but a registra-
tion under the ordinance was an annuul register—renew-
able annually, and forfeitable under certain conditions;
and, therefore, it was perfectly clear that the registration
under the ordinance was something totally distinct from
that under the treaty. This whole matter stood upon the
footing of the ordinance, and nut upon any other.
(Cheers.) Now, what was the fair and legal effect of the
ordinance? Undoubtedly the ordinance—supposing it
was not opposed to imperial law—might confer rights as
against the British, and a register might, perhaps, be en-
titled to respect from a foreign nation ; but he appre-
hended that the ordinance, and a registration under it,
could confer no right whatever upon Chinese subjects as
against the Chinese Government. That was the opinion
of Lord Lyndhurst, who expressed himself very strongly
and very clearly upon the subject.
With respect to the supposed insult to the British
flag, Sir Frederic Thesiger thought the entire con-
duct of our officials showed a predetermination to
piek a quarrel with the Chinese :
Sir J. Bowring chose to assume that there was a deli-
berate insult to the British flag by the Chinese. But
Commissioner Yeh had never, from the beginning to the
end, asserted anything which could induce Sir J. Bowring
to come to that conclusion; on the contrary, lie had
always written humbly and submissively, but always in-
sisted that the Arrow was not a British but a Chinese
vessel ; and why Sir J. Bowring should assume that the
Imperial Commissioner's impression was only a simu•
lated one, and not a true one, why be should assume on
the part of the Chinese a deliberate intention to insult the
British flag, unless for the reasons already assigned, it
was impossible to imagine. However, granting the insult,
what ought to have been done? Why, as the lion. and
learned member fur Tavistock had pointed out, the
Queen's Advocate advised the Government what was all
that would be requisite upon the occasion—viz., the
seizure of an imperial junk. That was considered to be
the sort ef reprisal which would satisfy the demands of
the case. Flag for flag, junk for junk,—such was the law
laid down the other night by the right hon. baronet the
member for Carlisle; but the seizure of a junk had
already taken place. An insult had been offered to the
British flag, and it was resolved to resent it by offering a
similar insult to the Chinese flag. Accordingly, Commo-
dore Elliott seized what was supposed to be au imperial
junk, but, according to the bitter complainings of Yell, it
turned out to be a trading vessel. Yet the intention of
the British authorities was to seize an imperial junk; and
if, as was argued by those on the other side, the acts of
the parties were to be judged by intention, no more ample
retaliation could have been desired for the insult offered to
the British flag. The matter might safely have been left
there, or, at all events, further proceedings should have
beeni suspended until the receipt of instructions from
home.

Sir W. F. WlLLtams opposed the motion upon the
general ground of the overbearing tendency of all
Asiatic nations, and of the necessity not only to
assume but to sustain our superiority over them.
Mr. SIDNEY lIERBEnT said he would in one sen-
tence state with whom he agreed upon this question,
and on what points :
In the first place. I agree with Sir J. Bowring that the
.4rrow was not a British lorclia—(cheers)--,-1 agree with
Kennedy, the stripling from Belfast, in his statement that
he knew that he was only nominally master, and that he
believed that the ship was owned by a Chinaman.
(Cheers.) I agree with Mr. Block, ofthe Board of Trade,
who says that the ordinance under which these licences
are issued is illegal. (Cheers.) I agree with Mr. Bridges,
who was the acting Attorney-General fur Hong Kong, who
says that the British subjects to whom these licences
were issued were not British subjects at all. ( Loud
laughter and cheering.) And, lastly, I agree with Mr.
Parkes that if the Arrow had been legally a British vessel
the reparation was far more than the occasion required.
( Renewed cheers.)

He would not revert to the question of the Arrow,
but he thought the whole system of colonial shipping
licensing required the careful supervision.; of her
Majesty's Government
I see it. stated that the state of Hong Kong depends
upon the prosperity of its coasting trade, and at the same
time I see that the Colonial Treasurer tells us that the
coasting trade depends upon the import of opium, &c.,
and when I recollect that we arc bound by treaty to %Ise
all our authority, and, in fact, to do our utwst to
suppress that tratlic—( Hear, hear)—there appears to me
to be some inconsistency—(Hear, hear)—and when I
hear of an insult to the English flag, I think it is time to
look well into an ordinance by which the British flag is
prostituted for wrongttil purposes. (Loud cheers )
The right hon. gentleman then came at once to 020
operations at Canton :

It seems to have occurred to Mr. Varkes that the retri-
bution exacted for the Arruw was far beyond what the case
required, and Sir J. Bowring appears to have cast about
for some pretext to justify cc poet facto the satisfaction

SATURDAY,

he had demanded from the Chinese. I won't quote a
despatch on the subject, but we all know for how long a
time Sir John Bowring had been carrying on a species of
controversy with the Foreign-otlice on the subject of access
to Canton. Perhaps the house will allow me—it is rather
curious—to show them what it was that imbued Sir John
Bowring to say that the moment had wired, the auspi-
cious moment, for reopening the question. lit 1834 1 find
this sentence in a letter of Sir John Itowring to the Earl
of Clarendon. At that time we were engaged in war with
Russia, and he says:—
My reception within the city lea question which must for the
present be made subordinate to more important matters. I did
not think right to demand such a reception, as the enforcement
would have required more time than I could now give to the
matter; and— [ucw mark this}-1 could not safely have carried.
on the controversy in the absence of the fleet.

(Cheery.) Is not this an indication of what Sir John.
liowring anticipated when he began the controversy?•
(Hear, hear.) lie writes again in July, 1ti.55, and says:—
It would be idle for the to use any language of displeasure mir.
of menace, altogether helpless, as I am, in the absence of She
fleet. (Hear, hear.) I am informed by the Hon. Captain K.
Stewart, of her Majesty's frigate Nankin, that his peremptory
inatrucuons are to proceed to the nortn, and to join the sulural.
there.

And, from a subsequent communication, it seems that
Captain Stewart dues proceed to the north. Now, you see
from this what was the meaning of an " auspicious " mo-
ment. (Cheers.) Peace was declared here, t think, at the
end of the mouth of March. It must have been known to
Sir John Bowring in the beginning of July, and let mu
just show how he stands in 1550 with regtril to that great
assistance to peaceful controversy—the fleet. (A laugh.)
In D 356 he had the largest fleet in the Canton river which
had been there fur years. The admiral and the commo-
dore were both together. lie had got the Calcutta (liner),
the Nankin (50), the if (50), the Sybille (44,,.
the Encounter (14, screw), the Hornet (screw), the Cum..
nuthdel (screw), the Niger (screw), the Sampson (11,
paddle), the Barraeuula (ii, paddle ), and the Bittern. (1.4„
sloop). Having got this great assistance, it occurred to.
Sir J. Bowring, to use his own expression, " that the cir-
cumstances are auspicious for requiring the fulfilment of
treaty obligations as regards the city of Canton:"
(Cheers.) Recollect that we bad originally acquired this•
right of access by treaty, and that we hat not only never
made use of that right, but had consented not to abandon,.
but to waive it. We waived it fur two years. At the end
of that time we did not reassert it—tha;, is, if we reasserted,
it in words we took no steps to alter the status giw..
During the whole of this period every successive Secretary
of State was showing hit visdoin by writing the most.
peremptory instructions, as as apparently to restrain.tho
exuberant activity of the Governor of Hong Kong. (A.
laugh.) Lord Palmerston wrote two or three letters full
of wisdom, cautioning Sir John Bowring; the- Earl of
Malmesbury followed; then came the Duke of Newcastle,
who sent Earl Grey's despatch ; and next the Earl or
Clarendon, each of film writing more strongly than the
others, and each urging this wan to give up his projeet„
which he seemed to dream of as the one thing by which
the British power was to be consolidated.

With regard to the Chinese, it was a question to
which they attached peculiar importance, and clearly
one upon which, when raised, by Sir John Bowring,
Xeh could not definitely reply to without instructions,
from Pekin

Under such circumstances witat was the notice givietath
him ? 'J he subject was mooted on the 24th of Octotion. A.
letter was sent iron' the admiral to Yell on the 30t1t, The.
commissioner =ewers is effect to that:—" You a= Tut.,
wrong; your Uoverament has waived this claim;' and hie
makes a diplomatic answer to what was to hint a disagree-
able proposal, Admiral Seymour writes again. on. the hit
of November, and, no answer being given,. 3:1:r. Varkes
writes on the 3rd, that the demand is to be pressed irre-
spective of antecedents, and that if it is sot granted " We
are going to resume liustihties." 'When ? Why, " this.
morning." (Cheers.)

It had been said that all these transactions had lja
the general concurrence of Sir M. Seymour. Hat.
how was it obtained Hut what he character.ised as.
false pretences employed by Sir John Bowring, who.
had made, he said, a disingenuous use of ioakatches•
from home.. In August, 1849, Lord Paltnerston ad-
dressed a minacious despatch to the Chinese authori-
ties.. With this was sent a peaceal44 letter to Sir•
George Bonham containing the real instructions..
Sir John Bowling, to convert. Admiral Seymour,.
sent him the one and retained the other:—
I ask, was it an ingenuous preeseding on the part or Sir
John liuwring—supposing 1 am right—to send the
admiral the minacious &tow:tient, but not the letter which%
conveyed the real instrwtions of the noble lard. (Lord
Palmerston) to Mr., konhain ? (Cheers.), I have one
sentence further. Sir J. Lowing states that in a commu-
nication dated the Oth of July, ItLlO,. written by Mr..
Haddington by order of the noble lord (1..0rd Palmerston ),
to the chairman of the Londou„ Ling India, and China.
Association, her Majesty's tiotternwent announced that had no intention to renounce the right of entering,
the city of Canton. I tent to that despatch of the tlllt of:
July, 18.19, and I had this passage :
I am to state toyou, m reply, that her Majesty's Goxerntneut;
have no intention to renounce the light of eutering, thu oily off
Canton.
Does it stop there? There Sir John Boning stops, but:
there lam nut going to stop. Here is Use passage in iO6.
entirety

lam to state to you, in reply, that b Majesty's Government
have no intention to renounce the. rig lit of cotellog the city of
Canton, although the) are nut umpired et present to resort to
hostilities with Chloe in erder to enforce that right. (ii ear,
hear.) her Majesty's Government are not ignorant that some
inconvenience nay reault trout the adoption vi a policy of mode.-

MARCH 7, 1857.

rrationin this instance; but as the practical advantage which
.could be derived by British trade from free access into the Jute-
friOr firCenton is probably not very great, while the effort to ob.
7tais the immediate fulfilment of the Chinese engagement in this
eespect would be costly, and might lead to a great loss of life and
destruction of property, and to a considerable interruption to
British trade iu that quarter of China, and might, moreover,
seriously stoat the trade at the other ports, her Majesty's
Govermneat are of opinion that the general commercial interests
of the country are beet consult d by not pushing matters to ex-
tremities on the present occasion.
Now, ray right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey) tells yon that you
trios'. make no distinction between Sir J. liowring and Sir
M. Seymour, because Sir M. Seymour was consulted
throughout. Bra the question is, if the admiral was
brought to a decision by these means, was he not induced
to come to that decision by something like false pretences
(Hear, hear.) When my right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey)
.puke so 'keenly about omissions from the despatches,
,what does he say of the suppression of a whole despatch?
((Cheers.) And for what purpose can this have been done
'if not,te induce a humane man to use the gigantic force at
4ile command against a defenceless commercial city?
He thought Sir John Bowring had acted a most
turiNise part, even if he had had instructions, in
tlaacing this question upon the Chinese:—

We know that the Secretary of State approves the
judgment, the firmness, and the moderation of Sir J.
Bowring—(loud cheers )—and especially of his respect forlife
and property. (Hear.) When my right hon. friend told
us we were•entirely mistaken, that Canton had not been
bombarded, ho could not have read the despatch of Sir M.
:Seymour in which he says," I am now shelling the city."
In another place he says he is dropping shot at moderate
intervals. ( " Hear " and laughter.) That is the modem.
Con which has so pleased the Government. This is, how-
'ever, too serious a subject to joke upon. After all,when you
have said the Chinese are a rascally set, and that as bar-
barians they are not to be dealt with in the same way and
with the same regard and forbearance as Europeans—when
you hare said all this, of which I give you the full benefit,
and alsolhat you must defend your servants wherever they
may 'be, there then remains this fearful case, that in a
miserable quarrel, which was not worth half an hour's diffi-
culty, which might have been settled by reprisals—( Hear,
bear)—for if one junk was not sufficient you might have
:seized fifty—you suddenly turn round upon a new pretext,
and, after destroying forts, you proceed to drop in shot and
:shell, in order, as my right hon. friend has described it,
to disperse a crowd a proceeding in which, of
course, neither age nor sex could be regarded, and all this
for some rascally Chinese whom you wish to call British
subjects. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman concluded :

I know what is the public opinion of England and
throughout Europe ; I am not anxious that we should go
on piling up year after year fresh offences against that public
opinion, until some day we may reap the consequence to
our detriment. Above all, I confess I see with the deepest
sorrow, force exercised with so little mercy, upon a pretext
so transparent—l will not say so transparently fraudulent
—in a manner E 0 destructive to the character of this
country for truth, justice, faith, and mercy, that I shall give
my hearty add honestsupport to the resolution, and, as my
sight hon. friend has observed, irrespective of consequences.
I cannot believe that the House of Commons upon such a
matter will allow the miserable question of party ties or
party feelings to interfere—( Hear, hear )—when asserting
the great principle of relieving ourselves, and, I trust, re-
lieving the country also, from the responsibility of these
transactions by the honest reprobation which the resolution
conveys. ( Loud cheering.)
Mr. Sergeant SHEE should support the Govern-
ment

Mr. ROUNDELL P.kutzn and Mr. J. PHILLIMORE
rose together, and the former moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate. There were several exclama-
tions from different parts of the house in favour of
the continuance of the discussion, but ultimately
the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday was
assented to.

Some unimportant business having been disposed
of, the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TUESDAY.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES DILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of this bill, which, he said, was substantially
the same as the measure which was passed by
their lordships last session, and which was
based on the recommendation of the commissioners
appointed to inquire into the subject, who agreed
that a court should be constituted with the power of
granting divorces a vinculo matrimonii au well as
a mensti et thoro. The bill of last session proposed
the creation of such a tribunal, to be composed of
the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of the
Court of Queen's Bench, the Lord Chief Justice of
the Court of Common Pleas, and the Judge of the
Court of Probate ; to these high dignitaries the pre•
sent bill proposed to add the Dean of the Arches,
and, with one or two trifling exceptions, that was the
only addition that had been made to the bill of last
session. That bill, after having been referred to a
select committee, in which a proviso was inserted
t hat the adulterer should not be allowed to marry the
adultress, was sent down to the Lower House, and
ultimately withdrawn. He now reintroduced the bill,
omitting the proviso referred to, and inserting a
clause by which separation deeds were legalised by
positive enactment.
Lord LYNDHURST said he wished to add a fifth
cam for divuroe to the four which the bill coh-