The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-04 00:00:00

plenipotentiary of weis ht and character to arrange all
ruaWr4 of difference br tweeo 113 and the Chinese.
Mr. J. G. PHILLI MORE, with great reluctance but
from stHro co- vie,ion, of .toty, wonl I vo e for the motion.
Nit-. P. COCHRA at supported the motion, and
insioed, from prirata ioforma',ioo he had obtained of the

position of Canton ,tilat the 'Jo Atbard men t must have pro-
duced immense ulaughter among the defenceless inha-

bitant s.
Mr. T. CITAWBVAS quot-d fr An the despatches to
show tila% the bo,nbard-me,t was directed agai,,,t
Goveroir.ent aod the Chinese s,,ldipr4. Hu pro-
ceedetl to def,nd Fjic J B.sring and the charact,r of the
transaction, 42e,'er•Lity.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he looked upon the motion
as one of censv.re, and of censure laid upon the noble
lord at the bead of the Government and of his col-

teaettee, wine ha‘i accepted the responsibility of the con-
duct of Sir J. Ts,l,..ring It had been said there had been
a wonderful coalition of patties. He thought his conduct
would have treed him from the charge of anything like
party spirit, Jae had only to consider whether the con-
duct of the Government was likely to support the honour
of the co offery. In Asia we were the only people of the
western world who possessed large possessions, and in
conduct were made to affect the cause of western civiles•
ation, we were under a despotism, it might be said in
eases of wrong that the people were not to blame ; but in
the vase of liberal Government the dishonour fell from
th'i noble lord at the head of the Government on to the
people of the country. He had listened to the speech of
the Attorney-General, which appeared to him to be that
of a lawyer who held a brief for the defendant in a run-
ning-town case. (Laughter.) The issue before the house
was a simple one. Ile would admit the Chinese and the
police were wrong in boarding an English flag, butall the
acts which had led to so greata division of opinion among
the lawyers, led to the punishment of the people of Can-
ton in the mode in which it had been inflicted. If the
same offence as that committed by the Chinese bad
taken place by the police-officers at Liverpool on board-
g, it would have been considered perfectly correct.
But the house should lo k to the case of a million and a
half of people, cooped up in Canton, upon whom we had
brought to bear the "civilisation of England." (Laugh-
ter) The Chinese were a highly civilised people ; put
there were peculiarities in their civilisation, and the chief
of these peculiarities was that they had not applied their
civilisation to purposes of war. We sent out to Canton
the secretary of the Peace Society, and see the result ! (A.
laugh.) In Sir J. Bowring's hand was placed the honour
and credit of England, and it rested in his hands—not in
the flag that fl rated over the paltry lorcha. If the flag
of England bad been tarni-hed, it was not by the police-
officers of Canton hauling it down, but because it floated
over the ships that threw shot and shed upon
defenceless and unarmed people. (Ironical cheers.) It
bad been said the Chinese had broken the treaty. had we
not broken the treaties on our side. (Hear) t The Go-
veroment of China professed to be the conservators of
trablic morality, and they wished to exclude opium from
the city of Canton and the ports of China. Tne chine,e
were afraid of us, they saw how we had txr.ended our
sway in India, mei they believed that we should do the
same with them. We, had, in fact, already annexed
China. (Lettehter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE explained the connection of Lord
Aberdeen's Cabinet with the appointment of Sir John
Bo wring to his prevent situation. That appointment was
made by Lard Chareed tri with the con-tent, certainly, of
Lerd Aberdeen, but the rest of the Cabinet knew tithing
whatever of the matter. He refused to consider this as
a censure on Sir J. Bo wring ; he believed his policy bad
been suggested ie the first instance, as it was opposed in
the last by the Government. He reprobated the lan-
guage of Sir G. Grey in charging Sir Jas. Graham with
insincerity ; and added that there was not a supporter
of the resolution who was actuated by party motives.
He wished he could say the same of the opponents of
Government. Mr. Bentinck and Mr. Kendall avowed
their intention to oppose the resolution rather than
allow three insignificant individuals on his side of the
house to find their way into office. He contended that
the blue-book containing a list of insults to British resi-
dents showed that the general rule among the Chinese
was not to insult the English. As a proof of it he men-
tioned that only two days before the affair of the lorcha
the Chinese Commissioner had passed over a gross in-
fraction of the treaty on the part of an English missionary.
He then adverted to the argument of the Attorney-Gene-
ral, and ridiculed the vanity of the learned gentleman
in his assertion that till he (the Attorney-General)
rose nothing had been said in the House of Com-
mons that was worth attention. He did not think
the argument of that learned gentleman would weigh
much with the house. If he• had correctly stated the
law, it was time that law should be brought back
to common sense. But be rested his case, not on statute
or treaty law, but on natural justice. What were our
relations with the Chinese ? We received the island of
Hong Kong as a port only for careening and repairing
ships—we had converted it into a colony of 60,000 Chi-
nese. We had promised to endeavour to put down smug-
gling—we had done all we could to encourage it ; and
the very ordinance under which the lorcha was registered
wee avowedly intended to extend the smuggling of opium.
And now they had crowned the whole by making war
with those who stood before them a 3 women or children.
The Chinese could not meet us in the field—no glory
could be earned ; and the British flag could only be
stained by these transactions. On the other hand, the
Chinese resorted to those miserable and detestable
contrivances which their very weakness taught them.
lie referred to the latest accounts received from Can-
ton, from which it appeared that tb.e city had been
fired in various places, and that a large portion of
the city was reduced to ashes. These were the ques-
tions to which Parliament had at its first opportunity,
but still he feared too.late, directed its attention. If the
agents were to be centinued nothing could be darker
than the prospect. The Cantonese population were more
embittt red than ever. But the political problem before
them was exceedingly simple. There was as yet no d.--
claration of war, and therefore we could have no difi•
cul'y in withdraaing our agents. He warned the teem
against the ignoble fear of being thought afraid, which
would lead them to go on in injustice simply because in-
justice had been begun. Many of those who refused to
support this resolution still condemned the proceedings of
Sir J. Lowring. If that statement went abroad to fo-
reign nations, with the fact that the house refused to
sanction these opinions by their vote, it would seal the
disgrace of England. But let him suppose the revere,
and then be told that subordinate efficiale of England
had committed injustice in the fir East, and were sup-
ported by the Government. An appeal was made to
the robles and bishops of the land, but it failed. But the
supreme apple' was made to the Commons of England,
and they redeemed the honour and the good name of
England.
nr. BENTINCK rose to say something in explana-
tion, but he was very impatiently listened to, L ,rd Pal-
Inereton having risen at the tame time. He was under
stood to say that Slr. Gladstone bad misrepresented
something which he had said. He had not charged the
s.elit hon. gent'enan with doing all that was y,la and
di:;4racefol, but had said that toe right hon. gentleman
and his friends had been fur seine years past aesocia'.ed
with all the anti-protestant inunvatlons in the church.
(Lnui cries of "No, no," and " Question.")
Viscount PALAIERSTON was loudly cheered on rising.
He coufes that from a gentleman possessing the
talent and experience of the hon. member for the Wes;
Riding—from a gentleman whose private and personal cha-
racter eta-ele so high in the estimation of those who know
bite--I should not have expected such a motion ae ho has
ma le, and such a speech as introduced that motion. The
motion has been shown by Mr. Labouchore to b 3 con':re-
trs&ctory in itself. It falls short of the object at which 1,
is aimed,and at which it was well understood to be director'.
It is a motion calling upon the house, in the first place, to
abstain from inquiry into the grounds upon which the hos-
tilities in China have been commenced, and following that
up by a resolution condemning the me inures that have been
taken to redress the injuries we have suffered. (Cheer' )
The hon. gentleman has talked of the logic of the Ch;ne.eo
before the days of Aristotle, but if he had studied either the
logic of the Chinese or of Aristotle, I think he would have
been able to draw up a batter resolution than this. (Cheers.)
He has also commended the morals of the Chinese.
I think he would have done more for his own morals if he
ba,l abstained from bringing forward this resolution.
The question was between her Majesty's Government and
Sir J Bo wring on one hand, and Commissioner Yeb on the
other. The hon. gentleman stated that Sir J. Bowring was
an intimate friend of hie, of 20 years' standing. Wo know
that he was an associate of the hon. gentleman in that ca-
reer of public usefulness with which the name of the hon.
member will go down to posterity, as having laboured to
introduce a great improvement in our commercial system.
What has happened since the hon. gentleman and Sir J.
Bowring parted ? The hon. gentleman disclaimed any vin-
dictive feeling against Sir J. Bowring, and said ho was not
anxious for vengeance. What injury has Sir J. Bow-
ring done to the hon. gentleman that ho should thus for-
get all the ties that formerly bound them. (Hear, hoar.)
My notion of the way to treat a friend of twenty years
is that you would view his course w ith indulgence—
that if you thought an excuse could be made for any
error you would endeavour to make it, but not
attack him for the first wrong
step which in your, opinion
he had made, with all the bitterness and resentment which
an enemy teight be suppose t to (ff ear, hear.) By
whom was Sir John Bowring fe:iln.ted to this station ?
Did he owe it to aristocratic irt whichatlipoz,nn
the w e haveu blc been
told so often is the cause of
vice (Hear.) Was he a member of that aristoepgacy ? Seirr-
People. He had
John Bo wring was essentially a man of the
brought himself into notice by his talent, industry,
and
public services. He was selected for the first appointment
which he held—that of consul at Canton—by myself,
when
I was at the head of the Foreign-office. I was led to make
that choice because I had wa ched Sir John Bowring in
b
his former course. He bad been employed in commerei
negotiations at Paris ; he had distinguished himself by
his knowledge of commercial matters ; he was a man of
great talent and varied attainments, and I felt that
ha was a man eminently fitted for the p )St for which
I selected him. (Hear, beer.) Then came a vacancy
in the office of plenipotentiary and superintendent
of trade at Hong Kong ; and my noble friend Lord Cla-
rendon promoted him from the office of consul at Canton
to th it appointtmlv. lie did it simply upon his own au-
thority. My noble ftierel on ioubtedly consulted me as
• hiving inora knowledge of air J. Bowring, though my
noble friend had been associated with him in negotiations
at Paris, and ha I had experience of his talents. Bust he
also consulted the then head of the Government (Lord
Aherdeen) ; and though Slr. Gladstone may en eavour to
thr.rwoff from that noble earl any responsibility—if respon-
sibility there be in that selection—yet I hold in my hand
a letter which shows that Lord Aberdeen was consulted on

the subject, and that he assented to the appointment.
That letter is dated the 9th September. "My dear Cla-
rendon,—l am not well acquainted with Dr. Bowring. I
never hal anything to do with him officially, but he is an
eminently clever man, while his knowledge of Chinese
gives him great advantages. You could not possibly find a
better roan." (Cheers.) Well, then, I say that the right
hon. member for Oxford University and the right hon.
member for Carlisle alleged that the Government of which
they were bath member had no responsibility in connexion
, ith the appointment of Sir John Bowring. (Hear, hear.)
Mind, I am not speaking of that responsibility as one that
requires defence, because I think Sir J. Bowring a-very fit
per=on for the appointment he holds, and that Lord Aber-
deen only showed his good sense in giving him a post for
which his previous services rendered him peculiarly fitted.
But .vho is the other gentleman who has been taken under
the patr•mage and protection of both right hon. members,
and whose character has been so much exalted at the ex-
pense of his opponents? What is the character of Yeh,
the theme of so much generous eulogy? Why, he is one
of the most savage barbarians that ever disgraced any
nation, whether savage or civilised, on the face of the
earth. He is accused of every crime that could dis-
grace human nature-- (cheers)—and certainly if I were
to choose any individual as an object of my partiality
and praise, I certainly should not prefer Yeh to the
British regresentative. (Hear, hear.) Sir John Bow-
ring has been accused of meddling in affairs of great
international importance, reckless of the consequences that
might ensue from his acts. Why Sir John Bowring was,
as we all very well know, a member of the Peace Society.
(Loud laughter.) Sir John Bowring was distinguished for
his amiable qualities and his mild disposition; and I
should say that if any man was less likely than another to
get the country he represented into difficulties or hostili-
ties, that man would certainly be Sir John Bowring.
I have said that Sir John Bowling was a distinguished
member of the Peace Society—no doubt if some other
members of that society were in his position they would
have got us very soon into a much more serious difficulty

than that with which he is now charged. (Hear.) With
respect to the introducer of this motion, what I complain
of most of all is the tone and temper which the honourable
member for the West Riding brought to War upon
it, because it was remarkable throughout ler an anti-
English feeling—an abnegation of all the ties that bind

a man to his country and his fellow-countrymen, which
I should hardly have expected from a man in his posi-

tion. Cheers.) With the hon. member everything that,
was Engliish was wrong, and everything that was hostile

to England was right. (Hear.) The hon. member said
that British merchants were a set of haughty, overbearing,

grasping, irritating men, who for their own purposes and
selfish objects were constantly getting us into disputes with
the countries in which they were settled. Where did the
hon. gentleman get this information of the British mer-
chants? Was it during hie recent continental tour that he
discovered the British merchants to be so unworthy ? The

hon. member said that he would not like to put over his
counting-house " Civis Romanus sum." lam sure that if
he were to write " I am a British subject," it would be held
that he was so neither in spirit nor in heart, by those who
saw it so inscribed. (Hear.) Again, the hon. member also
said that the government of England were bullies to the
weak and cowards to the strong; and that was said at the
close of a war with Russia, one of the greatest powers of the
civilised world—a war undertaken on every principle of
justice and of right, and carried on in spite of every
difficulty with au energy and courage that would havedone
honour to any country on the face of the earth. But the
boa member subsequently pointed out the object of his re-
marks. He said, " Would you have done this to the United
States?" meaning that we were cowards to the United States,
and this too from a member of the Peace Society. (Laugh-
ter.) He tauntsusin fact for having me 'le a friendly arrange-
ment with a kindred people—an arrangement which was
agreeable to us, and was accepted with cordiality by the other
naticn. Further, he taunts us for not making the difference
a cause of war, and says we were cowards because we main-
tained friendly relations with the -United States, and that
if we had had courage enough we should have gone to war.
So much for the reasoning of a member of the Peace Society.
(Laughter.) The illustration which the hon. member made
use of was singularly unfortunate for the argument he endea-
voured to establish on it. He said, " How different was
your conduct with the Unitei Statesin a case that arose in
Charleston in South Carolina. A law was pas.ed in South
Carolina, by which the coloured subject, if he came into
Carolina, was put into prison and kept there until the
vessel sailed." The hon. member added: "This was a
gross outrage, which hurt the sensibilities of the British
nation, and what did you do? Your consul at Charleston
made an application to the Minister at Washington, who
applied to the Secretary of State, and the matter was ar-
' ranged, reasons being given why a federal Government
could rot interfere in such a matter, and so the affair was
settled without an appeal to arms." But that is exactly
our case. If we had the power in China of sending a
Minister to Pekin, if we had the power of addressing our-
selves to the Moonshee of the Emperor, no doubt the same
result would have happened as in the United States, and
all difficulties would have been surmounted. And that it
is which constitutes the value and the vindication of the
demand which has been made by our admiral for personal
intercourse at least with the authorities of Canton. If
our officials had the power and right to communicate even
with the local Government when necessary, and much
more if we had diplomatic communications with the central
Government, it is manifest that the difficulties which have
swelled into a quarrel, would have soon been arranged,
and future arrangements of an amicable character at once
been established. (Hear, hear.) Let us inquire what was
the event which has given rise to these unprecedented at-
tacks. I will not, sir, go into the legal argument. Much
of the discussion as to whether the lorcha was or was not a
British vessel would have been carried on very appropr:-
ately before the Court of Admiralty, or a committee of the
Privy Council, on a question of whether or not she was a
legal prize, and therefore might justly be condemned; but
I hold of all that uissertation, however interesting it may
have been, however valuable and extensive may have been
the legal knowledge brought to bear on both sides, and in
both houses—l hold that that dissertation does not real!)
lie at the bottom of the subject. (Hear, hear.) We have
a treaty with the Chinese, and that treaty says that Bri-
tish vessels shall not be boarded, nor have men taken out
of them, without previous application to the British consul.
The question then is, what should the Chinese know and
believe the boarded vessel to be—did they consider her to
be a British vessel or not? I say they did. (Cheers.) I
say that the whole question turns on that, and when hon.
members accuse Sir J. Bowring of flagitious falsehood
when he stated that the Chinese did not know that the
licence had expired, I say that that is the real gist of the
whole case ; and inetea I of being a flagitious attempt at
imposition, it was a real statemeutof the questioubetween
the Chinese and British authorities, and was the sole ques-
tion to be adjusted. I say that if re Chinese authorities,
knowing or believing that this vessel was a British vessel,
nevertheless, in viol Awn of the treaty, boarded her, carried
off her crew, and hauled down her colours—l say that that
is the material part of the question, whatever may be the
technicalities of the case. The question is—Have we
been insulted, has there been a violation of the treaty ?
—fur if so, our representa- ives had a right to demand,
not only an apology fur the wrong, but an assurance
that it would not be repeated. (Hear, hear.) But
I think it has been shown that, in point of fact,
this vessel was to all intents and purposes entitled to the
protection of the British flag ; for although the zegister
had expired five days before, both licence and register were
good until the vessel returned t port. Why I never heard
of such a quibble as that which maiataius that the Arrow
was not at sea because she was in the river of Canton. I
am really ashanetite hear serious argument addressed to
',his house on a distinction of that kind. (Hear.) The real
meaning of the regulation that said the register should date
during her whole voyage, and it was a miserable distinc-
tion to make, that she was not at sea because she was iu
the river. I really did not expect such a line of argument.
( dear, hear.) What was the history of this lordly. Arrow
She had a good register ; she went to Macao, took in a
cargo, and brought to Canton. What had she to do at
Canton? What did she do? She deposited her register
with the British Consul. What was the Consul to do?
Despatch a communication to the Hoppe to get permis-
sion for the lauding the cargo. There is no pretence
that she landed her cargo contraband; it was of rice, and
she lay openly opposite the town for five or six dais, of
course with the consent of the Custom-house officers of
Canton. I say, then, that the Chinese knew the Arrow
was a British vessel, was engaged in a legal trade, had not
violated any law, and was entitled to the protection which
the ninth article of the treaty afforded her. (Hear, hear.)
Nevertheless, the Chinese violated that treaty at the mo-
ment she was about to sail, boarding her and carrying off
her crew. Then there is a question as to whether the Brl-
tieh ensign was flying, but we have it in the evidence of
two respectable masters of vessels, Kennedy, the master
of the lorcha, and the master of the I) set, both of whom
were within 5U yards of the Arrow, and saw the British flag
hauled down by the mandarin. They also saw, and this is
a fact which has not been sufficiently noticed—they saw
the Blue Petsr hauled down. I say that is important, be-
cause it is an answer to one of the main arguments of Yeh,
who says the lorcha could not have had her ensign flying,
because no vessel was allowed to hoist the British colour s
until she was about to get under way. But she was getting
underway, as every one knows that the Blue Peter is a sigu
of departure, so that she would have been off but for the
detention in a few minutes. Another excuse was that
there were no foreigners on board, and therefore he did not
believe she was a British vessel, but concluded she must be
Chinese. True, there were no foreigners on board when the
Chinese entered the vessel, but they went on board imme-
diately after, and before the Chinese left the vessel they
were there also. Could there beany doubt as to theirknow-
ledge of the character of the vessel, it was dissipated when
they found that on the representation of Kennedy they left
two of the crew with him. I say, then, away with such ex-
cuses; it is a falsehood, a flagitious falsehood, to say that
there was no British ensign fly ing, nu foreigners on hoard,
at the time they took these men away. (Hear.) What,
then, was the allegation made as an excuse for the course
of proceedings, quite different from the excuse after wards
put forward by Yah when collecting evidence to suit his
purpose. The allegation of the officer commanding the
party was that there was an old man on board who went
by the Dame of the Priest, and that this man was supposed
to be father to a pirate who was somewhere else. (A laugh.)
On the Chinese principle that relatives mast answer for re-
latives, th 4 would no doubt have cut off the head of this
Bu that
old reran if they could not get at his son. But why did they
takethe rest of the crew? They alleged it was that they
might
repeated statement
t et o was
M
nu serve as witnesses in the investigation of the case.
rn.optamrkadese
lovnhleyn toh
e the
applied Admiral—itforthewas
release of the
man whose men.
They said it was on account of this old
then Yels, son
with was supposed to bo engaged is piracy; but
—I don't deny his 3ility for which he is distinguished
ance except it be a ability,
although I demur to his forbear-
- ' but Yoh, with his forbearanceabila to tell the truth—(a laugh)
spirit, entirely shifts frouirttybearance, and conciliating
tirely different story. Wiui,s• ground, and tells an en-
t
sailor having been some months before that? He says that a
by pirates was able to recognise one
attacked in his vessel
ne of the pirates on board
the Arrow by two circumstances, one that h
turban, and the other that he had lost a front e wore a r I
ed
tooth. do
not know whether a red turban is a very peculiar
at Canton, but I think that if in Bailin headdress
g rapidly past the
lorcha in another vessel this man was able to distinguish
his enemy on board by no greater mark than the loss of a
front tooth, he must have been admirably fitted for a
sharpshooter, and would do deadly service with a Minis
rifle. (Laughter.) So gross an outrage on thin Country to be

THE SUN, LONDON, W

justified by such an excuse, and yet Yeh has been justified
in this house for making that excuse. (Hear.) Well, the
wrong having been committed, we demand an apology and
an assurance that hereaft3r such a violation of the treaty
shall not be committed • and it was not till after a forbeer-
,
slice of some days, and the refusal of any satisfaction on
he part of the Chinese, that measures of hostility were re-
-orted to, the first being the seizure of a junk, and the se-
.:oncl an attack on some fort, The hon. member for the
West Riding was very fond of referring to the United
itat -A as models which we should imitate on all occasions.
vow, what was the conduct of the United States comman-
ier in a case that occurred the same time as that of the
krrow ? A boat rowing past during the dispute was fired
The crew, believing it to be a mistake, hoisted the
"American ensign, but the firing was continued. There was
An outrage requiring reparation, but it was not a deliberate
violation of a treaty, and might have been the accidental
misconduct of a gunner, or the Chinese might have thought
be American ensign had been hoisted as a subterfuge. But
the commander of the United States man-of-war first born-
,arded the fort, and then demanded an explanation. They
first knocked down the offending fort, and then sent to Yeh
for an apology. He not only destroyed the fort, but sub-
sequently, seeing suspicious preparations making in an-
, other fort, he attacked that also before the expira-
tion of a truce which the Chinese had demanded for the

purpo3e of deliberation. I contend, then, as the hon.
umber for the West Riding is fond of making
comparisons, that our forbearance contrasts favourably in
this case with the proceedings of America. We demanded
eparation. Was the matter one of little consequence ?

What matter, it has been said, that a number of men were
taken from a small vessel? Why, sir, it is one of many
acts violating our treaty rights. We have by the treaty
f .Nankin obtained the right for all British subjects to
enter and reside without molestation in five cities of China,

of which Canton is one. The privilege, with regard to
Cantoa, is contemptuously refused. We have, moreover,
he right of holding land in these cities for commercial pur-
poses. And it is distinctly stated that as the wants of the
British community expand, they should have places as-
Signed to them by commission. That has been refused at
Canton. We have had a very small area assigned to ns,
where all the foreign merchants are crowded together to
their great inconvenience. But I know we want to have
more ground assigned to us—we do not care where—for
warehouse room. We have in vain appealed to the Chinese
—we have in vain appealed to treaty rights, and at this
s inoment a great portion of British merchandise and pro-
perty is stored in Chinese warehouses, which are not under
the control and custody of British merchants. Well, then ,
there was that determination on the part of the Chinese
authorities to refuse everything that the treaty guaranteed
to us, and everything which it was possible for them to
deny. (Hear.) And what is the ground of the refusal?
It is that the people of Canton are so barbarous, se cruel,
so savage, so hostile to foreigners, that it would not be safe
for British or foreign subjects to enter the city. The hon.
member for the West Riainu rave us a complete refutation
of that allegation on the part of Yeh and his prelecesaor, for
he read a statement to us showing that British officers and
British subjects have walked through the suburbs, and
were treated with civility and kindness, mixed with a
little curiosity to know of what materials their clothes
were composed ; but that no insult or molestation was
offered to them. Web, sir, do the wills of the city of
Canton make a division between barbarism and civi-
lity, between brutality and good humour ? (Hear.)
If Canton was the only town with which we had commer-
cial relations we might believe that Yeh knew his country-
men better than we did ; but into Shanghai, which is as
considerable as Canton, and which is every day growing in
importance, British subjects are allowed not only to enter
but social intercourse takes place ; everything is conducted
with humanity and good humour; and so far from any
difficulty arising in consequence of what has taken place
at Canton, no difference has taken place in our relations
with the people at Shanghai, nor, indeed, with the inhabi-
tants of any of the other cities which we have a right by
treaty to enter. (Hear.) I believe that this plea is only one
of the flagitious falsehoods put forward by Yeh and his pre-
decessors, in order to have an excuse for violating the
treaty by which the Imperial authorities are bound to allow
our entrance into Canton. (Hear.) Although I say that
this proceeding with regard to the lorcha is a violation of
our treaty rights, it is not the first. It is only part of a deli-
berate system to set at nought all treaty rights, to set the
populace against us, and to frighten us away for purposes
of their own, and that they may have an undue advantage
over us. (Hear.) This is one of the most important rights
which has been violated in the case of the Arrow. How
could commerce be carried on in security if British vessels
licensed and registered, and placed under the protection of
the British flag,. are liable at the caprice of the Chinese
police and the Chinese authorities to have all their crew
taken away perhaps; when they are going to sail. (Hear.)
This vessel had no cargo, but she might have had a valu-
able cargo and might have been stripped of all hands and
exposed to the mercies of the pirates in that quarter; to
say nothing of the loss which might accrue from detention
when the vessel was about to sail. The right, therefore,
which was violated was an important right—important to
British commerce in Canton, which was gradually increas-
ing, and which could only be carried on in small vessels of
the description of this lorcha. There was no pretence
for saying that the vessel was engaged in piracy or smug-
gling, and the old man who was seized was not accused
of any criminal act himself, but as the relation of a
man who was suspected of crime. (Hear, hear.) Can it
be said that the Government of Canton showed that kind-
ness, justice, and forbearance, which would make remon-
strance unnecessary? Why, the answer of Yeh to the ap-
plications made to him, so far from showing any intention
to change his proceedings, showed that there was reserva-
tion in his mind, and that he would commit the same act
again—(hear, hear)—for what he says is, that no Chinese
official shalt take men in future out of British lorchas
without reason. Who is to judge of that reason? Why,
the Chinese authorities themselves. (Hear, hear.) What
is the object of the treaty? To prevent the Chinese from
setting up their own reason as a ground of interference with
the just rights of the British merchants. (Hear.) The hon.
member for the West Riding says you must remember that
it belongs to the Chinese authorities to arrest Chinese cri-
minali. That is to say, the Chinese authorities are to set
aside the rights we have by treaty, to arrogate to themselves
privileges which by treaty do not belong to them, and his
Chinese officials are to judge of the innocence or the crimi-
n ility of the crews of English vessels. (Hear, hear.) Ido
not think that anybody has asserted that these men were
legally seized because they were Chinese subjects, and yet
they were placed at the mercy of this human monster.
(Heir.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cobden) Las asked whe-
ther, if a Spanish criminal were on board an English vessel,
in a Spanish port, we would act towards Spain as we have
acted towards China, or whether we would subject foreii,ia-
ers to our own municipal law and regulations in foreign
ports. These assertions are true, but the hon. gentlemen
who thus argued omit the circumstance of the treaty,
which overrides international obligations, and which is es-
pecially enacted for the purpose of overriding them. It is
perfectly well known that in treaties with the less civilised
nations of the world, we require that British subjects
should not be confined exceptin the presence of the British
consul. That is the case in Turkey; it is the case in Per-
sia ; and much more is such a precaution necessary
in China. (Hear, hear.) If the Chinese authorities
hed been the mild, gentle, humane, and forbearing people
they are represented to be, wo might have said, we will
trust to you and hope that when a British subject is con-
cerned you will have recourse to the British consul. But
we know the atrocious system of administration which is
carried on in China, and especially in Canton. But what
can you expect from a person who boasts of having struck
off 70,000 Chinese heads in one year by the axe of the exe-
cutioner. I remember some years ago reading that between
5,000 and 6,000 had been put to death, and the mutilated
remains of some had been allowed to remain in the slaugh-
terhouse whilst others were brought there to execution.
What were they to think of the barbarity of a Government
which perpetrated cruelties greater than were ever heard
before by the beheading of 70,000 men in a single year. I
have heard what I believed to be a joke ; but it has been
co.,firrnett by more than one gentleman who is conversant
with China, that persons who are condemned to death give
200 dole. to others to represent them. (Laughter.) I said
how can that b?, and I was informed that these persons say
your life is so precious you are not so certain that you will
be beheaded in a few months at the caprice of some Chinese
official; your head will be cut off, and you will get nothing
for it; is it not batter for you to be beheaded a fortnight
earlier, and be able to leave something to your family?
(Laughter.) What a pleasant state of society this must be
in this much-landed Government. These barbarities are in-
flicted by Chinese authorities. The first act of Yeh on the
breaking out of the dispute was to offer a reward for the
head of every Englishman. (Hear.) The next proclamation
we have had is that he would take secret methods of extir-
pating these hated foreigners, and by the last accounts
from Hong Kong we have seen how these secret methods
are carried out. (Hear.) We see in the atrocious murder
of 11 Europeans, how these proclamations have been car-
ried into effect. lam quite astonished at the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) when, instead of that generous
zeal and those noble sentiments which he has at his
command when he wants them, he tells us that, quoting
from the discussion which took place 15 years ago, " Of
course these Chinese poison their wells." The right hon.
gentleman now undertakes to defend these poisonings.
(No.) Yes, sir, I say undertaking to defend them. (No,
no.) He says it is the resourse to which the weak are dd.-
• yen to defend themselves from the strong. It is only ne-
cessary, therefore, for any parties to say that they are too
weak to resist in order to obtain the justification of the
. right hon. gentleman of the basest and most treacherous
crimes that can disgrace humanity. (Loud cries of "No,"
and cheers.) I was the more sorry to hear it, because 1
had found an excuse—and, as I believed, a tine one—in my
own mind, for his words on a former occasion. I did not
believe the light hon. gentleman to justify poisoning.
(Oh, oh.) What I believed ho meant was, that they were
such a barbarous nation as to be capable of such enor-
mities, that they practised such treachery, and combined
such cruelty with their acts, that it was only natural to
suppose that they had committed deliberate poisoning.
That was the notion I had. I regret to say that on the pre-
sent occasion the manner in which the right hon. gentle-
man has treated this subject induces in my mind the idea
that he was offering a sort of excuse for the practice. He
urges that their covetousness justifies them in practices in
which nations far less civilised than they, in which Kaffirs
and Indians do not indulge. Well, sir, then I say that it
was essential that we should require the fulfilment (:)'
treaty obligations because the parties with whom we he 1
to deal were not ouly forgetful of those engagements, but
were going step by step in a direction to place the safety
of our colony at stake. (Hear, hear.) Then, however, it
is said that we ought to have commenced by reprisal. We
did so. The admiral proceeded to seize a junk. What
was the result ? Commissioner Yeh said—" You have
taken a merchant vessel for which we do not care." Could
the admiral submit to this contempt ? No. Upon that it
became necessary to hare recourse to further measures.
But then it was said you went step by step, allowing
between each attack au interval of reflection fur Com-
inissionerYeh, but when youhad seized the ship youought
to have been content—you had obtained satisfaction. What
was the condition in which we should have stood ? Yeh
would have said, "I have triumphed over those English ;
they asked for an apology and explanation. I never made
an apology nor confessed my self wrong. I have gained a
political victory over these barbarians." Then it was said
that these measures had been attended with such slaughter.
Have hon. members read an account given by naval officers
about the c .pture of these forts? Why, he said there was a
feeble resistance, which inflicted little loss upon our people,
who, when they entered the forts, found that the manda-
rins had got boats for their own escape, but had left the
garrison to its fate, that the garrison thereupon rushed
into the water? What did our people do? Did they attack
them? Did they fire upon them? They saved them—rescued
them from the water, and then sent them in their own
boats to the opposite shore. Was that a measure of ci u3lty ?
These measures of aggression were the work of some hun-
dred seamen, aided, no doubt, by th eereaence of the fleet.
And you have only to read these papers to see—SirJ. Bowr-
ing being at Hong Kong and Admiral Seymour at Canton
—that the detailed execution of the measure rested princi-
pally with the admiral. And if Sir M. Seymour had said,
"I think we have done enough and that we ought now to
be satisfied," Sir J. Bowling would have bowed to the de-
cision. I cannot, sir, agree with Ono who hate Wien the

other side of the question in the view which they take of
this correspondence; so far from seeing any arrogance, in-
sult, and brutality on the part of our plenipotentiary, and
moderation and gentlemanly conduct on the part of the
Chinese, I think that the letters on our side are marked
with caution and moderation, whilst those on the pelt of
the Chinese authorities are tissues of equivocation and
falsehood. When the admiral found the Chinese Commis-
sioner was determined to push matters to an extremity, he
agreed to the suggestion of the plenipotentiary, and said
that there must be no further concession, and that an official
communication with Yeh must take place. That is the na-
total course of all hostile disputes of this kind : if the de-
mands made in the first instance are refused, and if a con-
tinual resistance is mettle, the demands increase with the
continuance of the resistance. It is the ordinary case, and
no party can complain if, by his own acts and want of faith,
he subjects himself to a continual demand. It is then said
that the demands which were made were entirely at variance
with the letters which I wrote on the subject. and with the
instructions of my successors in office. Why, sir, lam as-
tonished that men of real intellect, men who profess to de-
sire to act reasonably, who boast of stating the truth,
should confound things which are totally different. (Hear.)
This demand, which I thought and which my successors
slid ought not to be pressed for by means of hostilities, was
a demand for a full enjoyment by the public of the treaty—
a demand for a general and unrestrained admission of all
British subjects into the town of Canton, to live there, to
have their houses of busine-s, to communicate freely with
the Chinese. Is that the demand now made by Sir J. Bow -
ring ? His demand has bean one of a much more limited
character—it is a demand simply for an official communica-
tion between himself and the commissioner in the first in-
stance, no doubt with provisions for future communication
when occasion should require. Is that a demand which it
was altogether unlawful to make, or which was inexpedient
to be made, or which would be disadvantageous to Euglaud?
Even upon the argument of the hon. member for the West
Riding I call upon him as a witness to show that it would
be a very valuable concession, valuable not only for our ow n
interest, but for the Chinese, in avoiding difficulties in cases
of future disturbance or collision. And therefore I say—
things having come to this pass—that our representatives in
China did well in adding to the demand they had already
made for the fulfilment of the treaty in this respect.
Things therefore now stand in this position. It has been
said we are at war with China ; we are not at war, at least
I hope not. Up to the last accounts the quarrel was
purely local—(hear) —and still existed simply througL
the character of the men so unfortunately placed at
•nanton. The last accounts, moreover, showed no pro-
bability of any disturbance of the peaceable arrangements
existing between our people and the people of China.
(Hear, hear.) We are asked what our future policy will
be. That must of course depend upon the course which
the Chinese may take. Our first duty will be to care for
the protection of those British subjects who have gone out
upon the faith of such protection, and also to care for the
interest of those merchants in this eqtantry who have large
property in China, liable to all the ace:dents which exten-
ded hostilities would lead to. We have no wish for con-
quest, no desire to make China a British empire. It has
been acid that China is endangered by our trade. Is Brazil
in danger, or any other parts of South America endan-
gered by our trade there ? I say, therefore, that those who
say that the Chinese are right in keeping us out, are not
paying attention to those plain facts which ought to lead
them to a contrary inference. It would, on the contrary,
be a great advantage to the people of China if a larger in-
tercourse were established. (Hear, hear.) If this unfor-
tunate occurrence had not intervened, we were in commu-
nication with the Government of France, and probably
should have communicated with the Government of the
United States, in order to the sending of a friendly diplo-
matic mission to Pekin, with a view to make arrangements
for securing fresh commercial relations. Of course what
may be done must depend greatly on what is now taking
place. France and America are entitled to ask for an ar-
rangement of their treaty, and England, which has a right
to be placed on the footing of the most favoured nation,
will be also entitled to participate in any alteration which
may take place. lam sure that any step in this direction,
tending to do away with the obstructiveness which has
existed in China, will be of immense benefit as well to the
British producers as to the Chinese consumers. The very
limited extent of cur dealing hitherto has been one cause
amongst others of the extensive trade in opium, which the
right hon. gentleman has dexterously dragged in to catch
a few stray votes. We can only pay for our goods in
opium, as the very small quantity of British is not at all equal
to the amount of Chinese produce taken by us. Since 1842
to the present time the quantity of tea imported into this
country has more tlan doubled, having increased from 42
millions to 80 odd trillion pounds, and the increase in silk
has been still greater in proportion. I cannot have the
slightest doubt that if by communication with the Chinese
Government on the part of the Governments of England,
France, and the United States, we had succeeded in ob-
taining a larger opening for commerce and freedom for
trade, notouly would immense benefits have been obtained
by the three countries, but the advaptages to China would
have been incalculable. The question, sir, is now put,
what are we to do ? The hon. member for the West Rid-
ing not choosing to allow events to develop themselves,
calls on the house to affirm the resolutions, which would
defy the ingenuity of man to determine whether they are
to be taken as a censure on our officials in China, or a cen-
sure on her Majesty's Government at home. The right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire, indeed, in the few observa-
tions he made some nights since on the question of the ad-
journment, adopted the latter alternative, and received
them as a censure on the Government. Much of the argu-
ment then used in the debate may be left out of calcula-
tion. If the conduct of our officers was imprudent and
wrongful, we ought at once to have censured and withdrawn
them. We have not done so, but on the contrary have
thought it our duty to approve and support them, believ-
ing they had done the beet according to their judgment.
Having done that, of course the responsibility of their acts
falls upon us ; and therefore the vote of this evening, if in
favour of the re7olutione, will imply a censure on us.
Something, sir, struck mo very painfully in the course of
this debate. Nothing can be more respectable or more de-
serving of sympathy than an appeal to high considerations
when made on a proper occasion, bat I cannot say as much
for a parody of the language used by Lord Chatham and
Burke in circumstances totally different. (Hear.) • When,
sir, an appeal is made to the great principles of truth,
of justice, of humanity, and of the Christian religion, I
say, sir, that appeal is a perversion of thcee sacred prin-
ciples, when those principles are only invoked in de-
fence of flagitious falsehoods—(cheers and counter cheers)—
and of cruel inhumanity and atrocious crime% That, sir,
is what I have heard' with pain. It is painful to see such
principles appealed to in support of an Attempt to break
down all moral feelings, to justify crime, and induce us to
confound right and wrong. What, then, is the object of
this motion? The hon. member who moved it 'appears to
aim in a great degree at his old and bosom friend, Sir John
Bowring. Now, I have always understood that the way
in which friends ought to deal with each other is that indi-
cated by the poet,—
" Be to their faults a little blind,
Be to their virtues very kind,
And fix a padlock on the mind."

(Laughter.) But whether the hon. member for the West
Biding, has acted upon these principles with regard to his
dear, his bosom, his ancient friend, Sir John Bowring. I
leave to the house to determine. (A laugh.) At all events,
I venture to say that there is no man whose hears will be
more grieved at the enmity and bitterness, undeserved and
unexpected, of an old' friend than Sir John Bowling, will
be when he reads these debates. (Cheers ) But, eir, what
is it, then, that we are wanted to do? Are we to send out '
to China and say, " Tell Yeh that he is right. Tell him
that subtle lawyers have discovered by a great variety of
legal technicalities that the lorcha Arrow was really not a
British ship according to the imperial law, that therefore
he was right in what he did, and that he may do the same
again with any vessel under British colours which he may
think, with what he calls reason, is liable to the same in-
sult."' (Cheers.) What would be the consequences of that?
Our trade at Hong Kong and Canton would be as insecure
as if pirates had gained possession of the latter city as well
as of other ports. These would be no security for any
British property at Canton or upon the river. But would
that be all ? Why, Yeb, raising a song of triumph, would
way
Englishmen are afraid of me. I
have, " These cowarllyn
e driven away all the barbarians that were here. They
tell me that England
is a gFeat pwer and has a great
navy and army, but Englishmen are afraid of me.
I, Commissioner Yeb, will do what I like with them
in future, and whether it pleases me to adorn the palisades
with English rather than with Chinese heads, I will do
what I please ; and their pronerty shall be plundered by
whoever chooses to do so." Would that state of things be
confined to Canton? We have great and extensive interests
at other ports as well as there. Shanghai, for example, is
almost a European community. What man will answer
for the security of our people at Shanghai one fortnight
after the news of the adoption of such a motion as this 'Pit
would be a virtual casting-off of your British communities;
it would be committing them to the mercy of these barba-
rian's ; it would be a public manifestation to the whole world
that you are not prepared to defend with your power those
whom you have induced to place themselves and their pro-
perty in a foreign land. Such a proceeding would, I say,
be disgraceful to the country as well as dangerous to those
whom we are bound to defend. (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman at the conclusion of his speech described in very
eloquent terms the opinion which, in his view, foreign na-
tions take of the possible decision of this house. Sir, I am
afraid that the' 7 view will be far different from that of the
right hon. gen"eman. They will say, " Here is a Power
that has been formerly great in anus, whose fleets have
floated triumphantly over every ocean ; the people of this
country are governed by a deliberate assembly—powerful,
as the right hon. gentleman says, and responsible for its
acts. At last a change as come over the spirit of their
dream. This mighty, aryl hitherto undaunted nation, who
have deemed it their duty to protect their fellow-subjects
wherever they were authorised by their laws to go —this
proud and hitherto mighty people have laid aside their bold
front and have shrunk from encountering Commissioner
Yeh. They who have braved the armies of Russia ; they
who maintained a long and not unsuccessful conflict with
ono of the greatest nations in the world"—with whom I
trust, we are destined never again to come into conflict
except, as cur French neighbours say, in a conflict of gene-
rosity—(hear, hear)—" this people aro now overcome by
the love of gain. (Cheers.) They fear the expenses and
the efforts which may be necessary to protect their coun-
trymen, and they abandon a large community of British
subjects at the extreme end of the globe to a set of barba-
rians— a set of kidnapping, murdering, poisoning barba-
rians." (Cheers.) I say foreign nations would feel that
England has descended froin'that high station which
hitherto she has occupied, at the beck of some of the basest,
the meanest, and the moat degraded beings in the civilized
world. (Cheers.) They would say, " What leas brought
about this change?" Those who look below the surface,
those who look not merely to results, but investigate
causes, would say, " Do nut believe that the British nation
is a party to these proceedings. (Loud cheers.) No,"
they would say, "take care of yourselves ; do not imagine
that so h ild, so bravo, so generous a people are consenting
parties to this cowardly arrangement, or that you may
safely trust to meet with similar conduct for the future.
(Hear, hear.) It is an occasional event. (" Hear," and
laughter.) It depends upon an accidental condition of things
in the great council of the British nation. There have been
ered into—(cheers)—among men combinations recently ent
who bad for a long course of time been kept apart by the
strongest (linker-lo° of 011111ole, and by recollections of
resentment even not now entirely forgotten. They would
say, " This combination, not daring to put forward their
acts in the face of clay—having concluded a secret treaty
—(cheers and laughter) —not guaranteeing their present
state of possession (that being the last thing they wish to
do), but guaranteeing to each other the state of possession
which they hope to obtain—have cautiously abstained in
the resolutions they have proposed from using words which
would fully in the face of day have explained and clearly
developed unto all the nations the object which they have
in view. (Cheers.) They have shrunk from moving an ad-
dress to the Queen to remove Ministers whose places they
want to occupy. (Cheers and laughter.) They knew that
that Government, not so much perhaps for its own merits
as for the demerits of those who might be its rivals
(laughter)—did
possess the approval of the country, and
tbat, if the question were fairly put, Aye or No, will
' you, have that Government or the Coalition Government