The Press.
London, England, 1857-03-28 00:00:00

THE PRESS

that time, indeed, the evil had begun to unfold
itself—the continued isolation of the Peelites
was an impediment to all measures of public
utility; and the Government of Lord Jolly
RUSSELL was finally overthrown by a vote
which, however good in its results, was as
clearly the offspring of private pique as the
violence of a child in the nursery.
And here it is curious to observe that the
Government of Lord DERBY was conducted to
power by the conduct of a statesman who
had long been their determined enemy, and
was driven from power by the conduct of
another statesman, who had long been their
firm adherent. These alone are striking illus-
trations of our theory, but it is since the year
1853 that political infidelity has become
most strikingly apparent. We had a War
Minister who disbelieved in war, but who
sacrificed his convictions to his interests, and
the interests of the country to his convictions.
We had the motion of Mr. ROEBUCK carried by
an extraordinary majority, in which it is noto-
rious that numbers voted rather because they
dared not run counter to the torrent of public
excitement, than because they believed in
the sweeping accusations it conveyed. We
had next the spectacle of a distinguished and
veteran statesman deliberately calculating how
far it would answer his purpose to betray his
party, and descending to subterfuges. on
which we will not comment, to gain time for
consideration. And, lastly, we have seen that
identical Leader so careless of ancient obliga-
tions, and so callous to the true dignity of the
statesman's character, as to boast of that
which moss men would blush to confess—that
he " makes his game " out of conflicting prin-
ciples, that he plays one party against an-
other, and, like Mr. CHARLES MATHEWS in The
Game of Speculation, laughs in his sleeve at
both, and chuckles over his dirty dexterity.
The Parliament which began with Lord
ABERDEEN and went out with Lord PALMERS-
TON, respectively the Pecksniff and the Skim-
pole of politics, will not occupy a high place
in the history of the future, in which perhaps
the succession of Parliaments may be adopted
as landmarks rather than the duration of
reigns. With what resolution then must the
new Parliament assemble if it would avoid the
faults of its predecessor?
It certainly seems to us that when Mr.
DISRAELI expressed a hope that in the enstting
Parliament Parties would be more clearly
defined, he touched upon the real evil. As
long as Representative Government continues,
the existence of Party is the only guarantee
against the turbulence of private ambition.
A statesman who stands aloof from Party,
takes all the more kindly to himself, and, if
not literally selfish, becomes by long brooding
over his own projects an impracticable and
obstructive enthusiast. Party is the engine
by which great abilities are made available
for the service of the State,—disciplined and
directed, taught self-control, and saved from
their own extravagance. Whenever the ties
of Party are too weak to effect this end, it is
a sign that the body politic is in ill-health,
as particular passions which, under the con-
trol of a sound mind and body are conducive
to our good, in a frame weakened by disease
or age become dangerous or offensive.
The experience of history teaches us that
the prominence of individuals in a common-
wealth is a precursor either of revolution or
decay. PERICLES and ALCIBIADES, MARIUS,
SYLLA, and POMPEY, CROMWELL, MIRABEAU, and
NAPOLEON, are all, more or less, witnesses to
this great truth. The stability, and therefore
the happiness, of national life depends on
institutions. It is only when institutions are
tottering that individuals spring into supreme
importance ; and institutions seldom are
shaken while the assertion of party principle
continues to be honest and vigorous.
It is when these ideas die out—when the
spread of mateiial convenience and a devotion
to the pursuits of commerce have wrought
their end—when not only the poor but the
rich, not only the people but the aristocracy,
are ready to cry panem et cireenses—it is then
that a nation begins to revile party, and to
neglect institutions. It is then that oligar-
chies, tyrannies, and every abuse of legitimate
forms of Government arise. It is then that
either one man or a small knot of men sue-

299

ceed in fastening their yoke upon a people,
and by specious language and carefully pre.
served forms in reconciling them to the loss of
that self-government for which they have lost
the relish.

Such apprehensions may, at the present day,
sound like dreams. But we must recollect
that apprehensions which are shared by many
persons usually avert danger ; while it is
precisely those which excite the smiles of the
incredulous that are often followed by dis-
aster. For our part, we consider it to be a
great public duty to point out to the country,
that Party, if it be an evil in the abstract, is a
necessary evil—that is to say, a good in the
concrete ; and that, judging both from expe-
rience and from theory, taking into account
the infirmities of human nature, and the im-
perfections of human politics, we cannot but
conclude that Government by Party is the
best system that has yet been devised for
evoking the energies of citizens, and preserv-
ing the liberties of nations.

WAS THE LORCHA "ARROW " A
BRITISH SHIP ?

THE Ministerialists still attempt to justify the
policy and justice of Sir JOEIN DOWRING'S pro-
ceedings at Canton by determinedly asserting
that the Arrow was a British vessel, and had
a right to bear the British flag. To this view
the Premier commits himself in his address
to the electors of Tiverton. He insists that
an " insolent barbarian " at Canton had
" violated the British flag." Is this the fact?
The question must turn on the single point
whether the Arrow had a right to hoist the
British flag or not. If she had the right, the
flag was the symbol of British power and
honour; if she had not the right, it was but a
dirty piece of bunting, the symbol of fraud
and falsehood.

On this question, of the right of the Arrow
to bear the British flag, it is notorious that Sir
John BOWRING has told two stories—one
directly contrary to the other. He wrote to
Consul PARKES that " the Arrow had no right
" to hoist the British flag," her licence to do
so having expired. He writes to Commis-
sioner YE H, " there is no doubt that the Arrow
" lawfully bore the British flag under the
" register granted by me."
Sir JOHN BOWRING is thus condemned by his
own admissions. But the question may be
argued on broader grounds. Would the Arrow
have had a legal right to hoist the British flag
even had her licence not expired ? This ques-
tion is argued in a masterly manner in a
pamphlet recently issued by Sir FITZROY
KELLY, indisputably one of the most luminous
lawyers that ever illustrated British juris-
prudence.
What is a British ship? Sir FITZROY KELLY
clearly shows that under the imperial Acts of
Parliament the Arrow could not be considered
such, because her owner was neither a natural-
born nor a naturalised subject of the Queen.
The question remains whether the Colonial
Ordinance relied upon by Sir JOHN BOWRING
gave her that title, and Sir FITZROY informs
us that this ordinance, inasmuch as it is
directly at variance with the Acts of Parlia-
ment now in force, could confer no rights
inconsistent with those acts. He says :

This ordinance was made on the 3rd of March, 1855.
By the Acts of Parliament then in force no ship belonging
to a Chinese could be registered as a British ship. The
ordinance, then, which permitted the Chinese residents
of Hong Kong to register their ships as British ships, was
in violation of those Acts of Parliament, and illegal and
void.

But the Merchant Shipping Act of 1851 is also fatal to
this ordinance. That act came into operation on the Ist
of May, 1855. It expressly applies to all British colonies ;
and it contains no exception in favour of any act of any
colonial Legislature. If, therefore, the ordinance had
legalised the registration of the ship of a foreigner on the
3rd of March, it was repealed and made void by this act
on the Ist of May.
It is true that by the 547th section the act of 1854 may be
repealed, wholly or in part, by a legislative ordinance in
any colony as to ships registered in such colony. But the
ordinance of repeal must be confirmed by the Queen in Council;
and the ordinance in question, besides having been made
before the act of 1854 came into operation, has never been
confirmed by the Queen in Council. The act of 1854, there-
fore, expressly rendering the registration of any ship, the

300

property of any foreigner in any colony, illegal and void, is
consequently fatal to the registration of the ships of the
Chinese residents in the colony of liong Kong.

It further appears, from the official corre-
spondence laid before Parliament, that this
objection to the validity of the ordinance was
pointed out by the Board of Trade to the
Colonial Minister (Lord JOHN RUSSELL) on the
11th of June, 1855, and by the latter it was
formally notified to the Governor of Hong
Hong. in a despatch dated the 22nd of June
of the same year. Yet, in defiance of this
notice, Sir JOHN BOWRING permitted the Arrow
to be registered for a twelvemonth as a
British ship, on the 27th of September, 1855.
The registration of the vessel was therefore
in the first place wholly illegal, as it was in
contravention of imperial statutes ; and, in
the second place, we have the authority of
Sir JOHN himself for stating that, although
the registration had been legal, the privileges
it conferred had expired before she was
boarded by the Chinese authorities.
A grave question still remains to be consi-
dered is the Chinese Government, or is any
other Government, to be bound by any new
ordinance, however legal, which we may choose
lo issue on the subject of British ships? Lord
PALMERSTON and his followers have betrayed
the hopelessness of their cause by heaping
unon the people of China every term of abuse
which our language supplies; but they cannot
deny that we brand it, convenient to make a
treaty with them in 1843. Are the parties to
that treaty bound by its provisions or by the
ordinances of Sir JOHN BOWRING ? The former
defines a Biitish ship to be one thing, and t`-le
latter another. The Chinese knew very well
what a British ship meant in 1843, but it will
puzzle them to tell what it means in 1857.
The question in an international point of
view, therefore, comes to this :—Can one of two
nations which have virtually concluded a treaty
introduce new terms for its own advantage
without the consent of the other? Unless we
can reply to this in the affirmative, the Chinese
are clearly not bound by any new regulations
we may make extending to foreign the privi-
leges of British ships. Sir FITZROY KELLY
truly states that any systematic attempt to
carry out a principle so manifestly unjust
must certainly involve us in hostilities with
other maritime Powers. Are the Governors of
our colonies to be empowered to give licences
to French or Russian vessels which shall,
even in the harbours of their own country,
protect them against all interference on the
part of their own authorities ? The question
is too ridiculous to require a serious answer,
and yet it, is the logical consequence of the
proposition which the Premier has pledged
himself to maintain

KING'S LYNN.—Lord Stanley and Mr. J. H. Gurney
were yesterday re-elected for this borough without
opposition. Lord Stanley, in the course of a length-
ened address to the electors, in which he was fre-
quently enthusiastically cheered, passed in review
the subjects which have engaged the attention of the
late Parliament, and glanced at the topics likely to
come under the consideration of the new one. He
utterly denied the charge of "factious combination
and unprincipled compromise' brought against the
majority on the Chinese question, declaring that he
had never seen a division in which there was sa
great a moral and intellectual preponderance. He
d±nounced the war, as not only unjust to the Chinese,
and economically unjust to the English people, but
b,Tause, by weakening China, we laid that empire
open to the aggressions of Russia, whose designs
were already apparent in the north of China. Com-
mercially, politically, and diplomatically, that war
was a mistake. 'ruining 'from foreign affairs, and
from intervention in foreign states—a principle
which he deprecated—he approached those domestic
subjects which he thought of greater importance.
He vassed in review, mere or less minutely, the
subjects of sanitary reform, reformatories, electoral
ref)rm ; the tariff (in which he desired increased
relaxations) ; the paper duty ; the duty on in.
surances ; the income tai. He pointed out the
dangers to be dreaded from religious fanaticism and
the jealousy of classes ; and urged, as the only
means of averting it, that the Conservatives should
wisely concede, and Reformers act with moderation.
The noble lord, in an eloquent peroration, drew a
contrast between the two sons of political ambition—
the one based on selfish considerations, and the other
on the love of country; and concluded amidst a
burst of applause, by stating that the true patriot
had at heart, not what England could do for him;
but what he could do for England.