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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1857.

should have demanded her register. He found, in fact,
by a despatch from Sir J. Bowring, dated Oct. 15, that
it was found on inquiry at Hong Kong, that the register
of the Arrow had not been presented at the office of re-
gistration. Here again was another proof that the Arrow
was not furnished with legal authority. Into all this, how-
ever, he would not enter. But there was a matter con-
nected with the point of law adverted to by the hon. mem-
ber for Tavistock. He asked them what would be the effect
on Europe if the British Government were to sanction
such proceedings on doubtful grounds. He admired the
high talent of the learned Attorney-General—he ad-
mitted the power and ability of his speech, and he had
never been more struck than by the proof of it, as shown
in the manner in which he had rivetted the a.' tention of
the house on a dry legal argument on Friday night. Yet
even he would not compete with the illustrious name of
Lord Lyndhurst. The opinions he advocated had re-
ceived the support of that distinguished man, who had
1 sid down the law in a manner which commanded the at-
tentien of Europe. The legal authorities were, in fact,
balanced on the question. Yet was it not a most dan-
gerous thing thus to act on a question so divided as to
the views of the legal authorities ? He trusted that the
House of Commons, in giving their verdict that night,
would bear in mind that the eyes not only of this coun-
try but of Europe were upon them, and that the cha-
racter of their country was at stake. Our peaceful re-
lations with that great empire of China had been
interrupted, our commerce had been endangered, an al-
most undefended city had been unjustly bombarded, hu-
man bleed had been unjustly shed, and the name and
character of England bad been tarnished and impaired.
This he believed to be an unexaggerated statement of
facts, and he thought the House of Commons had a
right to demand from her Majesty's Government a better
explanation than had yet been given of the grounds on
which they sanctioned measures so discreditable to the
fame of this country. (Cheers.)
Mr. COLLIER deprecated this constant system of
eulogising our enemies at the expense of the character of
our own countrymen. He contended that the legal argu-
ment was in favour of Sir J. Bowring, and though he
would not commit himself to an approbation of all his
acts, he upheld him on the general principle that repara-
tion ought to besought for wrongs done in China or
elsewhere, and that such force must be used as was ne-
cessary to procure it. It that motion were carried he
feared that Commissioner Yeh would insist on repara-
tion from us, and proceed to still further insults, and
the motion which Mr. Cobden meant as the breath of
peace, would be found to fan the flames of war.
Sir F. THESIGER said he had not intended to ad-
dress the house on this question, but after ho heard the
speech of his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-Gene-
ral, he felt it to be almost an imperative duty to express
his sentiments. His hon. and learned friend appealed to
them all net to allow their opinions to be swayed by
party motives. Of course; he considered that he himself
was p •rfectly free from any such influence, and there
fore his salutary warning cool! only be intended for
those who might dissent from his own views. (Laughter.)
Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) will knew that the house al
ways listened with impatience to a purely legal discus-
sion ; but the points to be considered in this case wore,
alter all, not very difficult of apprehension. Tioey had to
deal with a treaty which was a mere agreement between
the parties, expressed in plain and intelligible terms, an f
with an ordinance which, though it proceeded from the
hand of Sir John Bo wring, was not more difficult to ex-
plain than acts of Parliament. The learned Lord Advo-
cate, who always spike well—(cheers)—and who had
certainly made the most able speech on the Government
side of this question, stated that in his opinion it was
imp ,ssible to place the Chinese in the category of those
nations t o whom the strict principles of international law
omuld be applied. He presumed the learned lord meant
teat, considering their peculiar customs and habits, and
the strictly commercial character of theintercourse which
they carried on with other nations, those conventional
usages which wereincorporated in the intercourse between
civilised nations were wholly inapplicable them. S.) far
he was dispelled to agree with the learned lord ; but there
were other principles of a hither description which were
anterior to ail the laws of nations, which were inherent in
our nature, and which came into action in our communi-
cation between states, whether civilised, semi-barbarous,
or even barbarous—the principles of truth, of justice, and
of humanity ; and it was not too bold a metaphor that the
jurists employed when they represented states as moral
ininons, and as such equally bound by the laws of hu-
manity with individuals. (Cheers.) The hon. and
learned Attorney-General asked them to discard all these
coesideratrons, aed to descend with him to the discussion
of the peculiar language and structure of the documents
before them ; and though it might be disagreeable to
leave the higher ground, he (Sir F. Thesiger) could not
refuse to follow him into the close lists which he had
marked out. He was certainly rather surprised to hear
his hon. and learned friend remark that in the debate
thus far the ground upon which the discussion ought to
turn had been entirely mistaken—(laughter)—and that
instead of discussing the question on the basis of the
ordinance of 1855 they must treat it as resting on the
supplemental treaty of 1843. To him (Sir F. Thesiger)
it was a matter of great surprise that all the able and
powerful minds which had addressed themselves to the
subject in the debate should have gone so completely
astray, and, what was more remarkable. still, that the
acuteness and subtlety of Sir John Bowring himself
had been so entirely deceived, he having a mind so
acute and subtle that if he had lived in the days of the
scboolmen, he might, perhaps, have challenged for him-
self the title which one of them obtained, of " the irre
fragable doctor." (Laughter,) The hon. and learned
gentleman said that when a merchant ship entered the
harbour of another country those who were on board
were obliged to conform to the laws of that country, and
that the crew of the Arrow might, undoubtedly, have
been seized by the Chinese authorities if it had not been
for the treaty In question. Now if he was able, as he be-
lieved he was, to satisfy the house that the treaty had
eei,hing whatever to do with the question, the Chinese
would find an unexpected advocate in her Majesty's At-
turney-General. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentle-.
man said, the term English merchant ship used in the
supplemental treaty meant, irrespective of the manning,
a ship having a British register in conformity with the
treaty; and then he went on to say :-" The words Bri-
tish ship, or English merchant vessel, were plainly used
in the supplemental treaty, not in the technical sense
given to those words in the Imperial statute, but
is the general universal sense of a vessel belonging to a
&hints merchant; in that sense only was the term
English merchant ship' in the supplemental treaty to
be interpreted." He (Sir F. Thesiger) turned, of course,
to the 17th article of the treaty, to see what was the
context,, and on doing so he was astonished to find that
the term English "merchant ship" was nowhere used.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) At first he thought he must
be mistaken ; but he read the article again and again ;
and he discovered that the only terms used on which
the question turned were, first of all, the title of the
'article. in which British "small craft" were men-
tioned ; next the words " vessels belonging to the
English nation ; and then the words " British
schooner, cutter, lorcha." His honourable and learned
friend the member for Plymouth (\lr. C. Pier) had im-
ported a new term into the article—the term " British
built," but in the article as it before stood there was no
such words, and it was a strong argument in favour of
the motion, that those who argued the ease on the
ether side could net de so without in, erting in the
treaty words which did not exist there previously. Now
let tin house consider what was the effect of this treaty.
The date of it was 1834, 12 years before the new-fangled
colonial registration under the ordinance of 1855. The
term "British ship," British " sloop," or "lorcha,"
had, at the time when the treaty was signed, a deanite
meaning among the Chinese ; it meant a vessel which
war owned by a British natural born subject, or a person
who bad been naturalised, or bad obtained letters of
naturalisation, and the idea that the Chinese anticipated,
when the treaty was entered into, a new description of
registration commenced 12 years afterwards, which
would enable them to appear under the dis.4uise of British
subjects, was an idea t>u ab and to be entertained. (hear.)
It was quite clear, th, re'ore, that the vessels referred to
io the treaty were vessels in the strict sense o!
the words. In fact, the proposition of the hon. and
learned gentieman (the Attorney-General) should have
been reversed, and instead of raying that they must rely
on the treaty, and not on the ordinance for a justification,
be should have said that they must rely on the ordinance,
atbned
(not. on the treaty. (hear.) He would now turn to
ilfr:semir)airut;:gn
laeinzgeteLzhlionlhntwlitaehlybe:7o.r 1855 it was considered de-
e that some check should be applied to the practice
othere was passed an ordinanCegt,hcinaorwrfied on to a very con-
haiolharwchasinsethdantioyoestityr
preserved the distinction between British vessels and
vessels of another description, it being declared that all
vessels • veal by
British subjects should be at liberty to
trade in case they werethe
provided with a certificate of
mit
was h
ywith
timperial a
rineegnistt.ry
Ain
registrationnceofownr
ns r odc introduced
f for
a r
thelia -
first time, and the Chine residentswithin theipt r colony(i)nv
dtde
were entitled to obtain c linial registration,
they were registered lessees of crown landsh
colony. The house should observe the distinction made
between vessels which were owned by British subjects'
and vessels of another description subject to a register,'
which bad to be renewed from year to year, the register
being forfeited if the conditions were not complied with,
It was very questionable whether this ordinance was
a legal one, whether, if enforced, it had not the effect of
repelling the Merchant Stripping Act with respect to
vessels of this class. It had certainly not been sanc-
tioned in any way at the time when the proceedi- gs with
regard to the Arrow took place. But when these pro-
ceedinge took place there was an ordinance of question-
able legality, upon which alone Sir J. Bowring founded
his proceedings. The house would observe the difference
between the treaty registration and the ordinance regis-
tration, Registration under treaty could only be to
Briti,h subj,cts, registration under the ordinance might
bof e to Chinese residents who were also crown les-cis
rarl ande ; registration under treaty was not .tempo
because the register was to be delivered to the
r;nhtettrets,:f the custom-house, and returned when
oarne,ri,inovnazo,e.i. yvvvlaltsswaab not to sail, registration under the
tin under
etnhde temporary registration, renewable
loatnhererefwoares,
BColmeaelt-htihnagt
dtil,etinreefifertnrian-
tr,l:litnrZcteY'alone.tobratardste
what was connection it roust rest on the footing of the
would, therefore, proceed to contidet
of the orditotnefe teaneowrititehdithis subject the legal effect
it not to be opposed to imperial thel ordinance assuming
might confer rights
as against ours; iva.,,"rights
might possibly be en-
titled to respect from foreign nations
but it could
no right whatever upon Chinese subjects as againsteontfheer
Chinese government. Such was the opinion of Lord
Lyndhurst. "Oh, hut," said the Attorney-General,
" that noble and learned l eel, for whom I profess the
highest respect, was under an error, and what is most
remarkable, was utterly ignorant of the only authority
on the subject. and that one which was decisive against
him." Lori Lyndhurst—ignorant of the law. (Weer.)
The ATTQRNEY-GENERAL—lwaidnosuch think.