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

HOSTILITIEi IN CHINA.

The adjourned debate on the Earl of Derby's
motion was then resumed by
The Earl of CARNARYON, who pointed out the
injustice committed by this country in enforcing the
principles of international law when those laws
applied in our own favour, and refusing to recognise
them when their application justified the conduct of
the Chinese. This had been the case in the
question of allegiance. While this country claimed
that no employment in a foreign country, no matter
how long its duration, could weaken the allegiance
of a British subject to his Sovereign, we expected
to relieve Chinese shipping and their crews from the
operation of their own laws by a mere letter of
British registry.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said it was supposed that the
ordinance gave to any persons who took a certificate
of registry all the powers and privileges which per-
tained to British ships. But this was to claim for the
colonial ordinance a power to alter the established
laws of England, and he, as a constitutional lawyer,
would say that for such purpose it was of no more
value than waste paper. He contended that the
ordinance never claimed to give the privileges of
British ships, but merely the right of trading back-
wards and forwards between Hong Kong and China;
so that that law of which they had heard so much
was in reality beside the question.
Lord WENSLEYDALE considered that the Colonial
Ordinance was perfectly legal, though, even it its
legality could not be established in a court of justice,
the Chinese at least had no right to dispute its
validity by capturing an English vessel and insulting
the English flag.
The Earl of MALMESBURY thought the question
was one both of policy and morality. Sir J. Bow-
ring actually admitted the vessel had no right to
the British protection or the British flag. That flaw
in the indictment, if he might so Corm it, Sir John
Bowring had, however, concealed not only from the
Chinese, but, as he (Lord Malmesbury) believed,
from Sir Michael Seymour, for that officer had
spoken of bombarding the town in consequence of
the Chinese refusing to make reparation for this
insult to the English flag. Could he, as an officer
and a gentleman, have so written if he was aware of
the fact that the Arrow had no right to carry the
British flag, and had no claim on the British protec-
tion ? He charged Sir John Bowring with want of
capacity and discretion, and considered he was a
most unfit rerson to remain in China. The quarrel
would add a century of rancour to the bad feeling
which had before existed between England and China.
The very morality of the country was at stake; and
as a Christian people they should reprobate the acts
of their officials at Canton.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE contended that the con-
struction of the lorcha proved that she was not a
Chinese vessel, add that consequently the Chinese
authorities had no pretence for boarding her. He
believed the people of China were most anxious to
trade with them ; but their Government had a far
different desire, and would sacrifice the interests of
their country if they could only drive the English
from their shores. Forbearance had but in-
creased the insolence of the officials at Canton ;
and to have submitted to further insult would be
virtually to abandon the footing which England had
secured there.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought, in the pre-
sent instance, the conduct of this country towards
the Chinese was unjustifiable. Ho firmly believed
that the insult to our flag, such as it was, was not
intended; and, if their lordships believed that such
was the case, did they not feel that a light offence
had been heavily atoned ? The Chinese people had
been alienated, their forts overturned, fire and
sword carried into the bosom of a peaceful city.
Was not that enough to satisfy the offended dignity
of this country, to appease even Dr. Bowring? On
Dr. Bowring a f.yarful responsibility rested; that
responsibility was now accepted by the Government ;
but he entreated their lordships' house not to share
it. There would be no peace for China while Dr.
Bowling remained near Canton, and he ought to be
recalled, were it only for his having stated with
regard to the 4rrow that which when ho stated it he