The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1857

the throw's register was in order and that the license was
paid up, itis beyond doubt that the Hong Kong government
leas no power to viohte the statute law of the country by
' The Hone Kent: legisleture can-
giving any sus m eew- se,.
tint act contrary to our navigation act, and the register was
nothing but waste paeer, if it was all in order. (flcar )
I see the noble lord at the heal of the Goveroment takine
notes: (A laugh.) I' wish him to note-what I am now going
to say, and to acswer a retrark made by one of his col-
leagues in another plate. Lord Clarendon the other night
used an argument which I think extremely fallacious. He
said the Hong Kong register could not give the imperial
rights to the ship, but only the righte cf a slip in China—
that they could only give pretection to a British ship. in
China. That is the place in which we gay it cannot give
protection. But show could the Hong Kong ordinance,
irrespective of any p.uthoritv from the impsriel rarliathente
have any force in China. 11. rd how could it contravene an
act of the Imperial Legislature ? (Hear.) I leave, sir, to
the lawyers in this house the legal part of the question. I
venture to say that no lawyer having a reputation to care
for (except sitting on the Treasury bench)—(a la tgb}—will
easiest, contrary to the declarati: n of Lord Lyndhurst, that,
our conduct was lawful. (Hear ) Assutnine, however, that
The Chinese were strictly justified, it is said that they had.
an intention to insult us. What are the grounds for that-
aupposition ? Let the house recollect the peculiar chat eater
tf the trade carried on along the coast of Caine. It will to
..en that it, is not extraordinary that the Chinese should
lave hoarded atvessel with British colons, oven if it had
those colours, which the Chinese deny. Why in those very
papers Sir J. Bowring mentions a casein which two English
vessels were seized for having smuggled cargoes, and by the
treaty the Chinese had a right to seize the cargoes but not
the ships, whiCh were restersd. That shows that there are
rises in which the Chinese have occasion to visit vessels with
eEnglish flag flying, and that such an act does not necesa
warily shove any disposition to insult cur flag. But I have
had a statement on this subject from an American gentle.
man— the United States marshal at Wbauapoa, who has
recently arrived in this country. He told into of cases in
which English ships bad been engaged in smuggling transac-
tions, and particularly mentioned one case, which, at my
request; he put into writing, and which I will read as an
illustration of what is going on near Canton :—" In the
summer of 1855 there, were close to the English vice con-
Relate frorcalo to 15 torches engaged' in smuggling, S or 10
having the British colours hoisted during the day, and the
cargoes being discharged at night. The Chinese authorities
could not long be ignorant of so glaring a case ; end 12
mandarin boats, each containing 60 men, male their ap-
pearance early one morning and captured the whole fleet,
five or six of them having the English colours flying at the
time. The vessels were taken to Canton, when the parties
having a right to fly the English flag claimed their vessels
and had them restored, the others being retained by the
Chinese Government. This ie. by no means an isolated in-
stance of the illegal use of the British flag, as you can see
by referring to the Hong Kong papers, where you will fini
plenty of cases in which the Chinese have questioned the
right of the authorities at Hong Kong to grant the use of
the English flag in such cases." (Freer, hear.) Now this
gentleman is himself against the Chinese, and is willing
tha tdhey should suffer any herrors—(l laugh)—but he said
to mo " Yot have chosen the most unlucky ground for
quarrel which you could possibly have taken, and you lave
not a leg to stand upon." (Hear, hear:) I Ilea d with humi-
liation what this gentleman sail, as to smuggling vessels
being allowed to use the British flag; end when 1 hear of
the flag being insulted I say, it is these transactions which
dishonour our flag.' ( gear, hear.) This American gentleman
male me ashamed for my country when he said, "We do
n, a allow such doings under our stars and stripes." (Hear.)
Look at the position in which the Chinese authorities are
placed by this system of ours in granting licenses to use
our fleg.. A Chinese goes to Hong Kong, alit becomes a
tenant of crown lands, or a partner with some one who is
(nd the Chinese are very clever at their partnerships), and
great friends to " limited liability ;" he then gets an
.Lnglish-looking ship, and engages some man calling him-
itslf an Englishman for the nominal captain. Any one
who wears a round hat and European coat will do. (A
lough.) He is called the captain, hat the real captain is a
Chin:linen ; the owner is a Chinese, the crew are Chinese ;
the pretendel captain is a " loose fish—(a laugh)—a run-
aa ay epprau tire, or a vagrant sailor ; he i 3 allowed plenty
of rum, and has nothing to do but drink; and mid r cover
of this pretence the vessel is allowed to carry an English
flag. Such a system it is most disgraceful to U 3 to sanc-
tion. (Eeer.) And one of the good abets I hope to secure
By a select committee is, the devising of means to put an
eed to this system. (Hear.) The advantages acquired by
mean's of the license are
mach greater facilities in smug-
gling, and protection in east of seizure, foe ifthe vessel has
:I.hr:epee-the cargo way be eeizeid, bat net the ship. The
eeistthice of such a system is the best riksen to show that
it cannot be assumed that it was inter:dad by the Chinese
to insult US, merely because they seized a vessel with the
iiritish colours flying, becalm they have constantly occa-
sion so to'go. But look pt the -cerresporelence, and recoi-
led., who'are the parties'who were- coiresponding. Mr. Con-
sul Parkes (3 clerk the other dty)—a. young man who one
(iv fray -here discretion— (a laugh) --and Governor Yeh,
ice,roy Ore tiroviece containing ':0,093,000 of inhabitants,
Considering the character of the correspon lence on the one
side and the othereit is impossible to see the slightest trace
of any intention on the part of the Chinese authorities to
insult us—and, on the contrary, there is on their side cour-
tesy and forbearance, and on our side arrogance end pre-
sumption. (Hear.) But look at the circumstances of the
,corrospOndence, and remember the dates, without obier-
eaug which jtai force wi I be lost. Thus, on Neva 12 Geyer-
etor Yeh writes, after Canton 113,1 been bombarded, and
his own license destroyed and ravaged- he writes a letter,
disclaiming all ineention to insult, in these terms The
12 men seized were all taken back by the assistant corn-
fuiesioner on the 221 October, but Consul Parkes then
vlealined to receive them, or the despatch sent with
them. lie says that the -Chitiese authorities were
,` not accessible. The assistant commissioner who was
aunt with the men is an officer commissioned by
the Chinese Emperor, and it is through Lim that the foreign
correspondence with me has always teen conducted." But
Consul Pariceslad made up Ills mind not t assent to whet
was pr.-Alosed." (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") On a sub-
sequent occaaiqn he insisted on something inure than the
?Aura of the men. There bsiug no inaccessibility on the
part of the Ciiinese authorities,whet ma le an immediate ad-
j tietinent impossible? - Yet on the 23d, 21th, aid 25th, the
eitforent forts of the city were destroyed, an I froth the
27th Oetober to the 15th Nov., a cannonade W 33 kept up,
by which numbers of dwelling-houses were consunsed arm
In eat loss of life occasioned. Now, considering the terms of
that letter, and the circ-umstamei model. n Lich it was
written, it is a proof that the writer had uo desire to pro-
voke, but toamaciliate those to whota it was ach!ros.e.l.
('lean) It is very striking how, through the whole con es-
poedeuca, Gower:air Yeh constantly harps on this—that the
Jurche was nut a British vestal. (Cle;if, hear.) There are
eight lettesa at least in which that is reiterated.
(llean) iiis language up' n that point is SO terse, clear, and
logical, thatit teight have beets used by Lord Lyralhurst—,
" The whole question amounts to this, that a lorcha built
by Chinese purchases a British fl vg—thaa, does not make
her n British vessel. (Load cries Of " Hear, leer.") All
Westminster Hall could not put the case mote cleor'y. And
what is so remarkable is this„ that. throughotit the corres-
pondence the J riti h authorities neverrefer to er refute this
simple point. (i-lear.) And though wo may have In and the'
Lord Chancellor 'talking of -everything elleetent that, and
t hough we may heir theattot.ney General ore long talk of .
everything elso—(s h-.ugh) —we shall not find any lawyer
with a charaeter to less, or who aspires to the seat of the
Chancellor—te Igegh) -who will venture to declare in:
explisit language.' that the prieciple leal down by'
Governor Yeh is wrotig. (Hear, hear.) He writes in.
another letter thus : I have always understood that
a foreign, flag is peculiak to a particular 'nation;' and
thoretore caunot sea how a foreign naqen can sell its
flee to Chinese.., (Hear,- hear.) 1 am not aware
foreeige nations have such a law." (Haar, hear )
"Ha 1 the ling belie fide belonged to a British merchant
vessel it would have been proper to follow another course ;
but the Chinese having fraudulently assumed the flag, ashy
should Consul Parkes put himself forward 48 their advo-
cate ?" (Linehter, sail loud cries. of "Hear, hear.")
" Because lee wanted a pretext to make war !" (Loud cries
of " Hear hear" from all parts of the house.) Sir (said
the hon. emeaber emphatically), I declare on my honour
that I believe it was so ! (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.")
I believe sincerely that there was a preconceived design to
. pick requarrel with the Chinese, and that there has been
mare encouragement given to that design than the braise
r,r,, at ail aware of. (Hear.) There was nothing in the
boafeling of the Arrow ten ling to chow that the Chinese
meditated en insult to the British flag. Et ery one ofthese
letters displayed a temper and forbearance and desire to
conciliate, such as ought to put the assailants of the Chinese
to the blush. tut Lox d Clarendon did not content himself
with this transaction. Ile said that for a lon.' time the
Chinese antholitiei had beeriencroaching on the rights of
foreigners, ant evincing a desire to encroach ou treaty
_ rights. If tech, lila been the case it was the duty of our
Otswerntnent to have tairen earlier st- 3 On the contrary,
however, we had drlted on to a quarrel, whiclie
hart
no ground to stand on at all. • (['leer.) If what Lordraudc
on had stated was true, why, iu the name
of .a-
. sense, bad not he or Lord Palmerston applied totohmeT4oon
vernmants of America and France long ago, saying, " We.
are p:.rtoes to the treaty, and let us all join in a joint ex-
postulation to Pekin?" Illeas.,) It was unstateemanlike
not to have redressed those grievances at the proper time.
TU-premoto-this dirty quarrel was an act upon which all
be world ought to cry shame. Ho denied, however, that
what Lord Clarendon had stated was true. It appeared
in the papers that since 1842 there wore still most striking
preofs that the authorities of China had manifested a sin-
cere and Consistent desire to carry out the treaty. •Why,
he asked, was this correspon lence produced only on the
very morning of the day that the Earl of Derby was about
to bring on his motion? The correspondence was carrica-
tured by the nick-nude of "Correspondence relating to In-
sults in China; (Laughter) That correrpondence was
laid on the table in Order to mystify. It contained no less
than 215 and oddinsults to the British flag--an amount of
reading net suited to lion. gentlemen less voracious upon
bluebooks than himself, and on which a Olin country gen-
tleman might well cry out "Mercy on na l" The extracts
iu this correspondence ivere garbled. They' ranged during
street time
131-
to
1816'
paaPlelyt of
9 and referred princi-
dentalla of
(irows. A case in which a boy had been acci-
ene 0r,200 and the British consul had awarded a
flag. (Aal.augh.)-N.vatput down as an insult to the British
record of complainer ~virile all this stress was laid on this
irgs, what-had been al; grave disputes and misunderstand-
Let hon, reeMbsre tugrertril on. in other parts of the world ?
place elsea-here. attention to what had taken •
theconntry had three times jeo-
pardised ate relatioes wit
line, to United States
relating to a boundary on questions
beenpdlead. Twice in rho
fleet had been got in realinses ~.talk;rics, and enlistment. A
House of Commons had there
debates with the object
eeipeeeibility of a
.sghaoirea,stenWr
oritiavd 'within that
of increasingeur forces to proviao for
descent of the French on our
time called out the militia. A
aimirope had b ien in a state of rev
a empires had
been- engiged in a most bloody and costly war with Russia.
_Froui 1842 to ISA
lutiOn:During troubles in France English workmen°-
hem banished to this country. If such things lisrp,„uld
be-
tween nations possessing the same habits if not the same
language, might we not have had a little more toleration
for thee-Chinese ? Was is it not an insult to their common
understanding to bring down such a blue book as this for
the purpose of making out a case for Lori Clarendon ?
not fairly given,
The extracts were as would appear from
other extracts he had in his possession from the original
pipers. For instance, Major-General D'Aguilar, in a letter
dated front Ilong-Kon7e, in Feb., 1817, and enclosed to
Lord Palmerston by Sir J. Davis, said that he load been a
great deal amongst the Chines:), and had been treated with
courtesy and civility—that everything depended on the
English, and that a kind manner towards the Chinese was
the best security against insult. (Hear.) He (Ifr. Cob-
d,n) had sometimes been accused of being hostile to the
army and navy. He had friends in both services, and had
C,)IUO to the conclusion that the bast friend of eace was
the veteran soldier. (Hear.) In 1816 Sir J. Davis, wri-
ting-to the governor, said that on a certain Monday 'beliedl
been walking for sixhoure about every part of Hong Kong;
that he had been treated with the greatest civility ; that
he had passed through thestreets with as much convenience
as-if he had been in London, and he felt convinced that in,
any disagreement the Chinese would not be found to bathe

aggressors. (Hear.) Our 'countrymen first adopted a
bodying tone, and trusted too much to protection after-
wards. The best 'protection, Sir J. Davis said, fey Eng-
lish merchants was to be found in their own circumspect
conduct, and by avoiiiing, rather than seeking, causes of I
offence. (Hear.) Now that letter was not to be found in
the blue books. Sir J. Davis,' in another letter to Lord'
Palmerston, declared that the. representatives of other
countries got better on with the Chinese, and clamoured
less for protection then our own. (Hear.) Lord Clarendon
was a great apologist for the English merchants. Now no-
body would doubt his (Mr. Cobden's) mercantile sympa-
thies.
His life had been devoted to the enlargement cf
the honourable end beneficent career of the mercantile ;
Ingle. (Hear, freer,) Sir George Bonham, in alluding to
the English neerehrants in China in 1847, Pahl that some of I
the younger (men -earn in favour of Freaking down the bar-
riers which kept us from the interior, but that the older
merchants were opposed to such violence. ' No doubt Eng-
lish merchants were in a species of duresse owing to the
confined area to which, for the purpose of recreation end
health-seeking, the Chinese laws limited them. He (Mr.
Cobden) might desire to emancipate them from that
duress°. but ho felt assured that violence would only tend
indefinitely to retard the accomplishment of that which
was desired. (Hear, hear.) It was notorious that a great
many of our countrymen were engaged in a traffic of an
exceptional kind-ea tjaffic hurtful to the souls as well as
the bodies of mankind. (Hear, hear.) That trade flourish-
ed under a certain degree of license and 'of lawlessness.
With these parties he had no sympathy whatever, and he
I feared they merited the reflections of the gallant officer to
whose letters he had referred. He did not think it was to
the benefit of English merchants that they shoisld he en-
abled at all times to summon an overwhelming force to
their assistance, and compel the Chinese to accede to their
demands. Without desiring at all to revive a certain
byegone discussion, his belief was that there might be too
much protection to British industry. A laugh.) Whist
our exports were declining they were more and more
passing through the hands of foreigners, instead of
Englishmen. (Mae, hear, hear.) If we went to the
Mediterranean, the Levant, and to the ancient seats of
commercial activity, it would be seen that the English
merchants, with all their probity, were a declining body.
The trade of Smyrna and of Constantinople was passing
from the hands of Englishmen to Swedes, Greeks, seal
Germans, belonging to countries who had no power to pro-
tect them at all. (Hear.) It, might be that it was the
haughty demeanour of Englishmen which compromised
them with the natives of other countries. It was all very
well for Lord Palmerston to inscribe on our passports the
words Civis, Romanus suns. That motto might prove a
guard to our footsteps ; but "Civis Romanum sum," was
not a very conciliatory motto to place on the doors of our
counting-houses abroad. (Hear and a laugh.) The East
India and Chime Association of Liverpool had put forwent
a very modest request in connection with our trale at
Chinn These modest gentlemen considered the present
disruption of our tea lo with China as a proper opportunity
fur insisting on a revision of the Customs duties ; and they
recommenied an ad Valorem, lay of 5 per cent on imports
and exports. That was a tariff which he (Mr. Cobden)
should like to see applied to England (a laugh) and he
would advise hiS friends in Liverpool thus to apply it as
soon as they could. ([Tear, and heighten) The associa-
tion Maintained that the British Government ought to in-
sist upon the opening up of British trade in China, that
new ports should be opened, with consuls to be placed
at them, and that we should have access to all tho ports
and rivers of China. (Laughter.) Suppose such a me-
morial had been a ldreseed from Moscow to the Govern-
ment of Turkey. (Hear, hear.) Could anything have
been' more " stunning" to -the Liverpool Association
than such an ukase? (Hear, and a laugh.) Such lan-
guage, ho held, deserved reprobation. (Hear.) Contrasted
with the tone of the extracts he bad previously road, it
was the lauguago of downright selfish violence. (Hear )
It was unreasoning injustice thus to treat a great empire
of 30,000,090 of people. But what advantages did these
gentlemen seek ? He only wished that France and Prussia
offered ua as low a tariff as China, There was not a coun-
try where trade was carried on with greater facility—no
country where ships could sooner load or unload, and get
fresh cargoes. Mr. Cooke had told him, as that gentleman
had described in his evidence, that he seen a ship of 1500
tons burden come into Whampoe, which had discharged
her cargo and taken in a cargo of tea in five der. Could
such expedition be attained in Liverpool? (Hear.) The use
of force, in order to open more ports in China, had failed in
1812. in the autumn of which year S r R. Peel had ober rved
that the fine harvest of that year and the news of the
Chinese treaty had saved this "country from fearful suffer-
ine and disaster. Depend on it that hostilities with
China, and the proposal to admit oar vessels to all the
rivers of 'China, would valet tend to diminish than in-
crease our trade in .that country. (Hear.) With regard
to the claim of foreigners .to be admitted to Canton, he was
of opinion, that when the treaty was signed it was contem-
plated that they should have as free admission there as to
Loo-Choo-Foo or'Shanghae ; but there La 1 been contro-
versies between our authorities and., the authorities of
China on the subject. In the correspondence at, the
end of these papers. was a despatch from Lord Palmerston
in which he odered the very best possible grounds why the
British merchants should not persevere to obtain admis-
sion to Canton. It appeared that the population of Canton
and of the province in which it was situated were a fierce
and ungovernable race who entertained hostile feelings to-
wards the English. Whetherl that character was owing to
their past communication cnith the East India Company,
or to their southern climate, he could not say, but he be-
lieved that bothour plenipotentiaries and Lord Palmerston
in 1847, 1848, and 1819, had urged this feeling of hostility
as a reason why the British merchants should not be admit-
ted to Canton. L3t it be remembered here, that it is not the
admission of merchants into Canton which my friend Sir J.
Bowring (who, us Lord Derby says, is monornoniac on this
subject) makes a sine qua non, but the admission of fo-
reigners. The hon. member criticised a letter of the hon.
member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) which appeared in the
correspondence, having reference to. Chinese importabA rig
paid for in opium. Ho could not understand what Sir
John Bowring was fighting for ? Wits it to g,t into
Canton? Why the governor had undertaken to meet
him ut the packing house of the greet tea merchant
Howqua, ant surely that might have sufficed for him. Ito
went further, and thought that the 'English residents were
fighting for a chimera if they considered it of any use to
get into Canton. Why. Englishmen could never live in
such a place as Canton, no more than they lived in the
Turkish quarters of Constantinople. Whet was really
wanted by the Enlish residents was free access to
the interior of the country around Canton ; but he appre-
hended what the Chinese authorities said of the people iu
the neighbourhood was true, namely—that they were fero-
cious and unruly, and that Englishmen would not be
likely to receive fair treatment from them. Now here
was a short address from the inhabitants of Canton on the
subject of our recent proceedings. They said i--
" The late affair of the lorcha, was a trifle; it was no
case for deep-seated animosity, as a great offence that
that could not be forgotten ; yet you have suddenly taken
-op arms, an :for several days you have been firing shell,
until you have burn- d dwellings and destroyed people in
untold nurnb?re. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be told haw
many old people, infants, and females have left their
homed in affliction. (Hear.) If your countrymen have
not seen this they have surely heard, have they not, that
such is the case ? What offence has been committed by the
people of Crnton that such a calamity should befall them ?
nigaln, it has came to our knowledge that you are insisting
on official receptions within the city. This is doubtless
with a view to amicable relations, but, when your only
procee4ing is to open a fire upon us which destroys the
Teeple, supposing that you were to obtain admission into
the city, still the sons, brothers, and kindred of the people
whom you have burned out and killed will be ready to lay
down their lives to be avenged on your countrymen, nor
will the authorities be able to prevent them." Mean)
He thought there was great good sense in that appeal.
Again, Commissioner Yeh, in a letter which might have
been penned by, the late Duke of Wellington, it was so
sententious, thus spoke of the inhabitants of Canton--
"They are very fierce and violent." And, again, in an-
other communication, in answer to an application for an
interview with our plenipotentiary, he writes, "I cannot
even go out of my house, I am so besieged by the peer
wretches upon whom you are inflicting such misery." It
was.most desirable that Englishmen should address them-
selves to this consideration—were the authorities of China
in good faith when they declared that they could not, with
convenience to themselves, carry out that plausible treaty
which 'gave the merchant and traders of this country a right
of entry into Canton. The papers before the house were
full of proofs to the contrary. Thera was a clear misap-
prehension that becau,e the treaty had not been carried out
the rights_of Englishmen had been violated. Now, ho be-
lieved that even if the treaty could be enforced, it would not
be of the slightest use. It was outside the walls of the
town, in the district lying between the water's edge and
the town," that our merchants,- servants, aid brokers re-
sided, and so if Englishmen had access to Canton it would
be outside the walls they would still continuo to do their
business. There was, therefore, no real grievance in Canton
not being open to Englishmen. But supposing that every-
thing which he had said could be contradicted, ho would
ask, was it right that with a country with which England
had treaties and alliances—was it right that our represen-
tative should be allowed to carry on war without lustruc•
tions from his Government ? (Cheers.) That, however,
was a point on which he did not intend to touch, as there
were many gentlemen present who would deal with it
much better than he could. He maintained that Sir John
Bowring, had acted not only contrary -0 the express in-
strnctione sent out to him, -but he hid violated all sound
principles of international law. He had sent upsloo men
from Hong Kong to Canton in the teeth of the express in-
junction sent out to him from England that the troops
were
not to be moved without direct orders from England.
The letters of Lord Malmesbury, Lord Granville and Lord
Grey were perfectly intelligible, one and all ivin'f, erem
epywoepirathehon
eue
etp e hbr
between
tev
wii
vneegedn raesogi orr ue
Jar st. e
change
ggi
nl a nt
and
d
Lord Clarendon as compared with what it was e.
tory orders that Sir J. Bowring must not genter'p upon ag-
gressivep- measures
t off neemonf s tt
the say,e ehr or
owe
rwiithathe
Ministers that preceded the noble lord in office. It
to him that the moment Lord Clarendon came into office
the check that had hitherto been upheld over our Pleni-
potentiary in China was withdrawn; in fact, from that
moment we were drifting into a war with China, precisely
as we did with Russia. When they looked at the specific
directions of Lord Malmesbury and .Lord Granville, and
compared them with the correspondence afterwards, he-
could not help thinking that something must have passed
in the interval which induced our Plenipotentiary to be-
lieve that oven if he did get the country into a mess with
China the news would not be unfavourably received at
home. (Hear, hear.) He gathered that the general im-
preasion abroad was, that after what had been done
by England, the merchants would in a body desert Canton
never to return to it. Ent surely cur object ought not to
be to destroy our own commerce. The fact was, the Go-
vernment had entered into a war which could not be de-
fended, and so all the world would think. And did they
suppose for a moment that France or America would take
the quarrel up on the miserable ground of the dispute
about the Arrow. He believed, at all events, that America
would not. For France he could not speak, knowing no-
thing about her Government. Ent might not this war if
It continue, lead to other complications with foreign
powers?— might it not lead, for example, to complications
with America, which be it remembered, was only half the
distance from China that England e was? Indeed, he might
mention that already the house f Russell, of Canton, had
protested that they would hold the English Government
rwe
as
rp ohnasvi
ibrlk t 3,
ben the fur
damage inflicted on them by reasoniof
carried on without notice: Well, but what
did they proposetodo
more especially the ? Hesaw that the Indian press,
great advocate for annexatioriend
n, India, which was always a
called upon Sir John Bow-
ring to play the part of a Clive (ironical cheers), and enter
did they annexationstil in
upon a caner of congret ncl
China as had
Herenw America would
been done in India.
:10c07000iescemoinpetolitale,aarnrs,dohgoewnsednitd?they
prepeasseatne empire of
would be to
He thought their wisest course, as a first step,govern it?
undo what' had been already done. If they repudi.tted
the acts of their plenipotentiary, as having acted without
America in a joint representation to be,
aithority, they would then be free to unite with
France and

permitted internal intercourse with China. He hoped
they should not be told there, as had been said in another
place by Lord Clarend )n, that the Chinese were a barbar-
ous people, end that, therefore, force must be exercised
over them. (Ironical cries of "Hear, hear.") Now, ho
would tell them that it would b 3 next to impossible to
govern the Chinese by force—(hear)—and they would be
disappointed if they tried to do so. Brit were the Chinese,
after all, so barbarous a people? Here was an empire
which at one time was the sole representative of civilisa-
tion in the world—which, 2,700 years ago, had a system of
primary instruction in logic before the time of Aristotle,
end in morals before Socrates. As was well known, it was
the Chinese who supplied the Romans with silks and other
articles 2,000 years ego. They were the most populous
nation in the world, and the most industrious nation in the
East; in fact, they might be termed the ants of industry
in the East. There must, therefore, bo something worthy
of respect in such a people ; and if Englishmen spoke of
them as barbarian's, and threatened them with force be-
cause they were not accessible to reason, it must be rather
because their ways were not our ways. (Hear, hear.)
Now, were not a people like this deserving of sympathy,
if not of justice, at the howls of the British nation'? He
would commend the question to the House of Commons,
and he felt confident it would do justice to it. (Cheers.)
The resolutions having been put,

Mr. LABOUCHERE said he was very far from regret.
ing that the subject had been submitted to their attention
by the hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat. He
thought that there Was not a member present, whatever
might be his opinions as to the transactions in dispute, who
would not agree in thinking that it would be unbecoming
they should take place without receiving the deliberate con-
sideration of the House of Commons; for those transactions
must deeply concerned important commercial interests of
the country, but they affected sill more deeply the repu-
tation and credit of the British empire. He was persuad-
ed that when the question was fairly and impartially
considered the house would bo of opinion that, however
much a warfare of this description between parties so un-
equal was to be regretted, that no blame on account of it
could attach to the local authorities entrusted with the
charge of British interests, and that no other course was
open to the Government at home, without a betrayal of the
charge committed to them, and lowering the British cha-
racter all over the world, than that which had been fol-
lowed. One thing must have struck all hon. gentlemen
who had carefully examined the papers before the house—
viz., that these things were not done in a corner, but that
they were done in the face of a gre European community
—in the face of a groat community of English merchants.
Now that was the language in which the hon. gentleman
thought fit to stigmatise that great and respectable body ?
Mr. COBDEN.—I beg the right hon gentleman's par-
don. Will he specify what I really said ? (He sr, hear.)
Mr. L A BOUCHERE.—Yes ; he would specify what the
hon. gentleman had said. The hon. gentleman said that he
believed the judgment of the entire mercantile community
at Canton was warped and vitiated, that they had been
moved entirely by their own selfish interests, and that
they were blind to all considerations of humanity and jus-
tice. (Loud cries of "hear; hear," on the ministeral
benches.) Now he (Mr. Labouchere) ha I a very different
opinion of English merchants in every quarter of the world,
no matter where they were found. He bed never himself
been personally engaged in commerce, but the honour of
the British merchant was dear to him from many associ
Cons. His family and connections Ivid all been engaged in
trade, and had formed a different estimate of the character
of the British merchant from that drawn by his hon. friend.
His hon. friend had drawn a very unfavourable contrast
between the conduct of our representatives and the con-
duct of the Chinese authorities at Canton. Now, did it
not strike the house as something very extraordinary
that, notwithstanding all that had been said, the sym-
pathies of the French and American residents ha I been
throughout with the English authorities ? The Ameri-
can consul, indeed, had evinced that sympathy to such
an extent that he joined our troops in their approaoh to
Canton. lint he held in his hand the testimony of a person
still higher than the American consul—he meant the testi-
mony of the chief superintendent of American trade, resi-
dent at Macao, and ho would call the attention of the house
to the document the more pointedly as it did net arrive in
this country in time to be presented to Parliament with
the papers previously delivered. Nothing. colSosfu6
elea
,thhinenb
and
letter,
mwhich woarsedoauttesdpomksecna,o,ththane
2t7hteh loafneeca
the American Legation. It was as follows—

" Legation of the United States, Macao, Dec. 27, 1856.
"To the Merchants and other Citizens of the United States.
" His Excellency Peter Parker, Commissioner of the United
States of America to China, &e., referring to the notice of the
i9th inst., hereby makes known the reply of the Imperial
commissioner to his excellency's despatch of that date was ie-
eeived last evening, and that, with the semblance of a desire
to maintain friendly relations between the two countries, the
same disposition to evade obligation, misrepresent facts, and
erroneously interpret treaty sti,mlations, which for years has
characterised the correspondence of Imperial commissioners
still obtains with his Excellency Yeh. The resumption of
trade to any extent at the port of Canton, during the exist-
ence of the local authorities, is not encouraged by the tenour
of the communication now received, and means more ample
than those now at command will be required to meet the
emergency of the public interests of the United States in
China, and,the satisfActory and proper adjustment of the re-
lation of the five ports is an event yet future. _

By order. " S. WELLS WILLIAMS,
" Secretary of the United States American Legation."
Ho imagined that docnment was of the more import-
ance because it was issued subsequently to the difficulties
between America and China having been solved. It was,
indeed, a document which might have been put forth by
Sir J. Bowring instead of Mr. Parker; but he hoped, as
it proceeded from an. American instead of a British com-
missioner, it would be entitled. to some respect and
attention. (bear.) lie believed the fact to be that the
relations between the Canton atithorities and all the Eu-
ropean Governments had become, perfectly intolerable. He
could not regret, theref..ra, that a crisis had arrived which
had been long anticipated. It was one thing to hold amic-
able relations with a Government which knew how to re-
gulate any differences that might arise in a just spirit— it
was another to be placed in contact with a Government
that had no respect for obligations of treaties, and who
availed themselves of every opportunity to outrage the
rights of Europeans. (Hear, hear.) He must say that
the resolutions of the hon. gentleman were the most
obscure and ambiguous ever presented to Parliament.
They were framed to catch as many votes as possible, but
he did not fairly raise the question at issue. Why, the
hon. gentleman called upon them most illogically to come
to the conclusion that the recent • measures adopted
against the Chinme were violent and unjust, without taking
into consideration the grounds of complaint which the
English Government hail against the Chinese authorities.
The propositions of the hon. member for the west riding
e vinced the most illogical mode of reasoning he had ever
heard in that house. He could not understand how the
hon. gentleman could ask the house to agree to such incon-
sistent and incongruous propositions. Aed to wind up all,
the hon. gentleman asked for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into our commercial relations with
Chine. Why, that was a separate scatter altogether. He
(Hr. Labouchere) did not know whether the hon. member
for Midhurst (Hr. Warren) was in his place. Now, that
lion. gentleman made the other night one of the shortest,
hut certainly not one of the worst speeches that had ever
been uttered in that house, when be said, " Just fancy the
British constitution being referred to a select committee."
Now he (alr. L.) said it would be scarcely less extraordinary
to imagine that the foreign relations of this country were
referred to a select committee. Why, that was a matter
for the house itself to determine. If they thought that the
Government were wrong in approving. of the conduct of
their officials, why lot them frankly and manfully say so.
The Government could then understand their verdict and
would bow to it ; but let them net assent to such unintel-
ligible propositions as had just been submitted to them.
Although he did not profess to be a lawyer. he neverthe-
less did not think that it required any special legal know-
ledge to consider and to understand this question. Much
had been said as to the character of the lorcha. Now,
there were two classes of British registered vessels which
wera quite distinct, and which ought not to be confounded
together, although each of them ha I a right to carry the
British flag. Thera was first that class of vessels which
were fully untitled to registry, and to obtain all the rights
of British vessels without the intervention of a special au-
thority. There was, however, another class of vessels
which, from the necessities of trade and of pecnlar circutn-
stances, were entitled to a colonial and partial registry,
which was only available w'ehin special limits. Many
hon, member; were, no doubt, aware of that which was
called the Mediterranean class—a class which existed fur
upwards of 200 years. Ships of that class need nit be
British built nor British manned, nor even bo British
owned, an .I yet be entitled to celery the British flag and to
enjoy British protection. Those were ships that were sail-
ing from Gibraltar, Malta, or other places in the Mediter-
renews. He had before him a case of a Gibraltar vessel,
in which the con lition of British ownership was dispensed
with in 1823, and an or ler in council was issued conferring
the right upon her to carry the British flag and to claim
British protection. Yet she was not manned by English-
men, nor, indeed, by any British subject. It was consi-
dered enough that the owner should have had, while on
skore, a fixed place of abode at Gibraltar for m. during the
term of 15 years up to the time of granting or of the issuing
of such licence. Now that privilege was given by the pre.
r'gative of the Crown---s prerogative which had been ex-
orcised at all times by in order in council in the case of a
conquered or legal cession. It was under this latter form
that a licence was given to Hong Kong, now a ceded colony
of the British Crown. It was only new that any doubt
was started as to whether the ordinance in the present case
was lessal. lie believed it was clear that when this lorcha
lay in the Bay of Canton the Chinese knew that they were
doing an illegal act by boarding her. They had English as
well as Chinese evidence'to that effect. If even the Chinese
authorities were ignorant of the real state of the case, in-
stead of boarding the Arrow and violently hauling down
her flag, they should have remonstrated against what they
might have considered was an abuse of the British flags
He could not agree with the hen. member for the west
rini dai nrg when he a
u deandin
tct
crateth at them Br a
nueirt,i soh o r
thatffi officials als
theyhtea, i behaved
shown
any wish to pick a quarrel with the Chinese authorities.
He (Mr. L.) was not acquainted with Consul Parkes, but
he was bound to Fay that every parson who had had an
n
ro
eppp,o,
rrttendn
hi tiymo
tf jbued
ag i n ga
no f his
the last person who would be at all likely to behave in a
of goodcharacter
gaol lodd ctoe nmdpueert, h
anda had
rude or intemperate manner. A remonstrance had been
made to the Chinese authorities after the first outrage upon
the lorcha, and an interval of several days was allowed to
pass without any movement by the British authorities.
No satisfaction having been given during this time Sir J.
Bowring wrote a most temperate letter while making de-
mands for reparation. At length hostile measures wore
resorted to by Admiral Seymour, who conducted them in
a manner worthy of his character. Much bad been said
about the cruelty of the bombardment of Canton. Now,
up to the present hour, the city of Canton had never been
bomba.ded ; but, undoubted y, hostile measures were re-
luctantly resorted to, which were as much as possible con-
fined within the limits of principles of humanity. The
right of entry into the city of Canton, though for a time in
abeyance, had never been abandoned by the British Govern-
ment. He (Mr. L.) could net at all agree with those who
said it was an improper time for Sir J. Bowring to take a
step for the enforcement of that right. Sir John Bowring
was not the man to resort to any harsh proceedings
unless they had become absolutely necessary. He (Mr. L.)
now came to a most important point of the hon. gentle-
man's speech. He said that Sir John Bowring hid
acted in violation of the express and positive directions
given him by Lord Grey when the noble lord was in office.
Sir John Bowring was liable to no such imputation. The
instructions given could not be held to have anything like
a universal application. Was it intended that under no
circumstances should Sir John Bowling iesort to hostile
measures ; that he should never do more than defend him-
self..? Why, if our unfortunate commissioner had any such
instructions given to him, and if they became known to the
Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, no man would be left in
a more hopeless and deplorable condition than he would be.

(Hear, hear.) How could such a moaning as this be given
to the instructions sent to a dependency four months' mi.
from this country ! But it was said, what a shocking thin-_!
to giro a British consul in Hong Kong the power of in-
volving
England in a war with China. Ile (51r. L.) con-
tended that they were not at war with China, and he hoped
that they would never bo at war with Chins. He held in
his hand an opinion of one of the greatest lawyers that had
ever adorned this or any other country—the late Lord
• Stowell. . That great authority, when speaking on the law
of nations, said, " A commander going to a distant station
may reasonably be supposed to carry with him such a por-
tion of authority delegated to him as is necessary to provide
for the exigencies of the service in which he in employed.
In a station where Eaglan'i may b 3 said to be close at hand
to superintend nod direct the course of operations under a
ournme.nder's control, the case may be very different. But
in respect to distant parts of the world, this power cannot
be disputed." Now, he (Ur. L.) thought that that settled
the question. Sir J. Bowing possessed that right, and the
case was one which fully Justified him iu resorting to it.
Even according to American authority, it was evident that
the commander possessed that right inasmuch as he did
not think it necessary to write to Nirashington for orders
when an affront was offered him in the Chinese waters.
The British flag having been outrageously hauled down by
the Chinese officials, he believed that the British authorities
had no option left in the matter, but were bound to resort
to those hostile measures to obtain reparation. He should,
indeed, regret that the conduct of the Government at home
should be visited with censure in consequence of those
proceedings; but he should regret still more if they had
had the weakness and the pusillanimity to shrink from the
discharge of their duty, and to fail in supporting their
officials for the steps they had taken to vindicate British
commerce and British honour. (Hear, hear.) They had
no such wish as bad been imputed to them of adding China
to the British empire. This unfortunate dispute hat arisen
ant with the Emperor of China, but with the local govern
anent of Canton, which kept the Government of Pekin al-
together in the dark as to those proceedings. His hope
was that it would not spread into a general war with the
empire of China. On the contrary, there were not only
satisfactory relations between the English Government and
the Chinese authorities established, but he thought that
the proceedings which had taken place would rather
lead to our whole relations with that empire being placed
upon a more satisfactory footing. He trusted in God that
the time w, rot d come when that groat portion of the human
race which inhabited the empire would be brought into
closer communication with the more civilised pordon of
toe world ; and that the tyrannical and creel government
like that of Canton, which seemed only to exist for the
misery and degradation of the human race, would be re-
placed by one more alive to the blessings of humanity.
(Hear, hear.)

Sir E. B. LYTTON said' that the right hon. gentleman
who had just sat down, although speaking with great
earnestness in.support of the proceedings of the British
officials at Canton, had not, he (Sir E. B. L.) thought, suc-
ceeded in giving a very satisfactory reply to the powerful
arguments of the honourable member for the West Riding.
Before he (Sir E. B. L.) sat down, if the house would
favour him with its indulgence, he hoped he should be
able to show how groundless was the position assume I
by the right honourable gentleman. There were two
questions really before them out of which many others•
incidentally arose. One was the question whether the
Arrow was bona fide belonging to the English na-
tion, according to the plain meaning of the 17th article
of the supplemental treaty. And supposing it was so, the
next question was this—were the circumstances connected
with it such as to warrant the adoption of those hostile
proceedings on the part of the British officials for the al-
leged outrage that was committed towards her by the Chi-
nese authorities ? The hon. member for the west riding
very properly asked how could a vessel be British which
was notoriously Chinese in every sta se of its history—being
built, owned, manned, fought for and litigated for by Chi-
nese, and with nothing English about itexcept theacciden-
tal presence of a lad under age, who was hired by the
Danish consul, and who was his nominal master? He (Sir
E. B. Lytton) also asked, in the name of common sense,
how could this vessel so ch iraeterised belong to the Eng-
lish in accordance with the terms of the 17th article of the
supplemental treaty ? The right hon. gentleman alluded
to the Mediterranean class of vessels. Now, the only mode
by which those vessels could be turned into English ones
was by a colonial ordinance ; an I they might as well en-
deavour to turn a tea tree into an oak tree. These colo-
nial ordinances might bind our subjects, but neither their
ordinances nor their acts of Parliament could have the
effect of altering the international law in regard to other
nations. When they referred to the treaty of Nankin, the
Chinese had a right t 3 consider the date of that treaty ;
and at that date there was no small class of vessels that
could possibly have belonged to the English nation. The
Ch'nese were not bound to allow this country a right by
subeequent regulations to appropriate to herself a vessel
that was built, owned, and manned by Chinese, and which
essentially belonged to the nation of China. (Hear.) It
was a fundamental axiom of all treaties that they should
be construed according to the terms and usages prevalent
at the time that the treaty was made and concluded. Now
it was by ne moans the usage at the date of this treaty for
the British nation to claim such small vessels as those. The
Chinese, therefore, asked the British Government to define
what they meant by an English vessel ; and the only reply
was to refer them to our navigation laws. (Hear, hear.)
It was only by the Shipping Act of HU that even an
attempt to torture this into an' English vessel could be
made. And this torturing destroyed the vital principle of
that act itself. Supposing that according to the English
law they could naturalise every Chinese in Hong Kong, they
should regard the operation of the law of nations in such a
case. He asked could they a•ccording to the law of nations
make such naturalisation a protection to such natives in
their own country as against the independent sovereign
whose subjects they had naturalised? Would they natu-
ralise Austrian subjects, and without the consent of the
Emperor of Austria make that naturalisation good as
ag iinat his tmperial Majesty's rights over his o wn subjects!
This custom of naturalisation was founded upon civilisatiou
and based upen principles of reason. Would any indapeu-
nent sovereigu suffer such an infringement upon his rights
as had been in this case contended for ? Could -they take
the vessels and the subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and
without the Emperor's consent exercise a sovereign right
over his sovereign liberties ? The 17th article was the only
one in the treaty- by which it could be contended that this
lorcha was a British vessel, but it did pot follow that be-
cause according to that article certain vessels which had
complied with certain regulations were to sail under Bri-
tish protection, this vessel had complied with those regula-
tions, or at all came within the meaning of the treaty. Ac-
cording to the English law she could not have been an Eng-
lish vessel at the time of the seizure ; she could not have
been so according to the law of nations • and, he therefore
denied that she could have been made English by doing
what vessels tiat were English ware required to do. If a:,
the time of signing the treaty the British Government in:
formed the Chinese authorities that they would sell all the
privileges and protection of British vessels to vessels be-
longing to Chinese natives, did they suppose that the Chi-
nese or any people in the world placed in a similar position
would have signed such an article? (Cheers.) Did they
for an instant imagine that any independent govern-
ment would acquiesce is this monstrous privilege of
sel:ing the British flag to the subjects of another
nation ? (Cheers.) What was the reason alleged by
the British agents to the authorities of Hong Kong for this
ship registration atrangement ? Why, "that legal trading
might be protected, and illegal trading prevented." (Hear,
hear.) But what had been the result of the measure? That
in two instances our flag had protected smugglers, and that
In this instance it had protected apirate, to the destruction
of legal trade ! (Loud cheers.) He maintained that this
lorcha Arrow, belonging to Chinese subjects, and employed
in the Chinese waters, could not at the date of the treaty
leave been a British vessel. (Hear, hear) If since the date
of te • treaty they had made a colonial ordinance, that might
bind their own subjects, but it could not have the effect of
international law, or bind the Chinese, unless the Chinese
Government bad agreed toit, which it was clear they had net.
(Hoar.) This wag clear upon the principles of international
law, as expounded by Wheaton and other leading authori-
ties. It was clear, from the 17th article of the treaty, that
this could not be called a British vessel; and, if that were
so, they could not avail themselves of the 9th art.' which
said that, if any Chinese malefactor were on board a Bri-
tish vessel, and that the Chinese authorities wished to ar-
rest him, they should first apply to the British consul.
That 9th rule applied to British merchantmen; but this
was not a British merchantman, but a Chinese vessel.
(Cheers.) But granting, for argument that it was a British
vessel, and did belong to English subjects, he then asked,
was the act of the Chinese so inexcusable—was it so out-
rageous, so insulting to the dignity and interests of this
country as to merit the bombardment of Canton ? (Cheers.)
The right hon, gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies
hal said that the evidence in the matter was so over-
whelming in favour of the British authorities, that he won-
dered any man cowl 1 question the course they had pursued.
What was that evidence ? 1 he British authorities had only
four witnesses : two Chinese and two Englishmen. (Heal:
hear.) They had two Chinese, who deposed to the fact that ,
the flag was flying at the time the lochs was boarded, and
that it was pulled down. But Commissioner Yeh had not
four, but more than seventy witnesses—soldiers and msn-
daring, and he had evidence that the flag could not have
been flying at the time it is alleged to have been pulled
down. (Hear, and cheers.) There was no denying this—
that it was the established custom not to hare the flag
flying till the ship was under weigh. there was no con-
tradiction to that. (Cheers.) Bet assuming that the flag
was flying, according to the evidence of one of the Chinese,
the mandarin who gave orders for the pulling down of the
flag said, "This can't be a British ioreha, there is no
foreigner on board; haul down the flag." (Cheers.) And
when the officer came on board a vessel which had been
notoriously a pirate ship—which must have been known
to all the Chinese authorities—which was stated to have
been employed in the disturbances between the Imperialists
and the insurgents, and when he did not find a foreigner
on board, was it not reasonable of him to believe, if there
was a flag flying, that it was a pirate's flag. (Hear, and i
cheers.) This was not merely a question of who was right
and who was wrong ; it was not only a question as to
whether the Chinese were wrong. tut it wPs a question al
to whether they were throughout the whole proceeding so
outrageously wrong as to justify the British authorities in
the very extraordinary course which they had taken?
Were the English to be the merciless avengers of legisla-
tion in their dealings with foreign countries, while at home
even severe offences against th law did not draw down
death upon the offenders? (Hear.) Were they to ba phi-
losophers in national legislation, and ruthless exterminators
in every infringement of international law? (Cheers.)
While our Ministers at home were dealing mildly with
offenders who preyed
upon the very-vitals of society, our
representatives abroad engaged in this—he would not call
it " war," but in the wholesale massacre of our helpless
customers in a remote *corner of the globe. (Cheers.)
And at best, this was but a petty misunderstanding about
a trumpery ordinance which the Board of Trade ad,
witted to be extremely questionable, and which was in
direct variance with other portions of the arrangements
with China. (Hear , hear.) Commissioner Yeh was
blamed by Government for not having apologised.
They asked the commissioner to acknowledge that
(the
the vessel which he commissioner) believed to be
Chinese belonged to the English. Now, in asking him to
do that, did they not ask him to be a traitor to his coun-
try and his Sovereign ; and to admit the authority of the
representatives of England to dictate laws to Chine ? In-
stead of making any
such admission, Commissioner Yeh
declared, over and over again, that if the vessel were Eng-
lishsay to Sir J. Bowring that he (Commissioner Yeh)
he would have adopted a different course and he did
would
be very much obliged to him if, to prevent futuremisundeia
standings, he would not sell English registries to Chinese
ships iu future. (Hear, and cheers.) He (Sir E. B. Lyt-
ton) was indeed astonished to hear the right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Labouchere) speak of the language used by Mr.
Consul Parkes as something remarkably courteous—some-
thing remarkably proper for an official in his rank to ad-
dress to a viceroy
in Commissioner Yeh's position. Now,
without repeating what had been said in another place on
the suljeot, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) would just make one I

votation from Mr. Parkes's letter. On the 221 October
:hat gentleman writes to Commissioner Yeh —" I should
to your excellency that I have sueliclear and conclu-
Ave proofs of the facts that your excellency aft 3nipts to i
lent'." -Now, let, the house mark the words, " attempts
to deny." (Hear.) Why, in all Commissioner Yeh's cor- I
respondence there was ne phrase so gratuitously insulting
as that. (Hear, hoar.) Would it not have been more be- I
coming in Mr. Parkes to have said, " the facts on which
your excellency has been misinformed." (Hear.) This
young man was addressing ono of the five Cabinet Minis-
ters of China. How would any of her Majesty's Ministers
like to be so-addressed by the consul of another State ?
Lord•Clarenden had said in another place that "it Ras
evidently an after-thought" of the Chinese authorities to
say that the vessel was not an English one ; but what did
the very first letter of Commissioner Yeh say in page 6
" This vessel, having a Chinese owner, is not an English
vessel." And Sir J. Bowring in one of his first letters
made an a lmission that the protection could not be legally
extended for more than a year without renewal of the
registration. It had turned out that the time had in this
case expired ; and yet step by step our representatives in
China had proceeded to the destruction of a city, which
bad, perhaps, entirely fallen, for the sake of a vessel which
could not he legally protected. What a miserable excuse it
was that the Chinese did not know that ? (Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Falsehood did not consist merely in telling a lie;
but also in the wilful suppression of a truth. (Hear.) Was
that the honour of the English nation ? Or was it not the
honour of an Old Bailey attorney ? (Cheers.) He (Sir E.
B. Lytton) maintained that the words of the 10th rule did
not provide that all vessels which had been registered were,
when more than a year at sea, protected till their return.
The wording of the rule was distinct, as enjoining that the
renewal of the registry should take place within one year ;
the extended time in case of vessels at sea applying to the
depositing in the Colonial Secretary's office of the registry,
which, when the vessel was in port, should be produced at
the time of the renewal of the registry, but in case she was
at sea at the time of such renewal, then on her return.
(Hear.) Great stress was laid on the allegation that the
Emperor of China had not carried out the treaty of Nankin,
by the admission of foreigners into Canton ; but according
to the recognised principles of iuternaeional law the Em-
peror would be excused from carrying out such a provision
if it was either irneracticab!e or pernicious to his state for
him to do so. (Hear, he tr.) Louis XII., than whom a more
honourable King never existed, was called upon by the
States General of France not to carry out his treaty with
the Emperor Maximilian and the Archduke Philip on the
ground that it would be pernicious to the French people;
and the Emperor of China's refusal to admit foreigners to
Cant-:n had always been based upon the latter ground.
(Hear.) It appeared from the evidence of the French Jesuits
who had visited the interior of Chins that the Chinese
Government, like that of ancient Egypt, paid great defer-
ence to the customs and wishes of the people, and there was ,
good reason to believe that in this case fan ,ticism and preju-
dice on the part of the people might be too strong for him.
a!1 events our proceedings, which he (Sir B. Lytton)
thought were a stain on the 19th century, were not calcu-
lated to improve the Chinese opinion of foreigners ; and as
for our proposition to protect British subjects by a British
army, what independent sovereign would consent to such
a thing in his own dominions ? (Cheers.) Under these cir-
cumstances what are we to do ? Was it our business to
insist on that part of the treaty, seeing that the Emperor
of China had observed other parts of it, and a lmitted us
into those ports where he could, al?d only did not a lmit us
into Canton, because he could not? Was it our duty—were
we to insist upon it, no matter if it were impossible or pet-
nicious or not? But, even if the treaty were capable of
fulfilment in this respect, could we possibly have a more
unhappy occasion than that which had been chosen for the
purpose'of enforcing it ? The right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Labouchere) had told the house that this was not the Oast
time that there had been various insults and hostilities on
the part of Chiva, an 1 he referred especially to the y ear
1852. But what was the reason which Sir J. Bowring
urged in, that year for pressing forward our claim? Why,
that mutual tranquillity reigned at Canton, and that the
prejudices of the Chinese towards us were greatly abated.
That was the happy state of things he found in lets 2, an-1
which he began to disturb in 18;4. He now, with the most
innocent simplicity, pressed for ward our claim to outer the
city, because, having attacked and bombarded it with our
forces, the Chinese were animated with the greatest hatred
and animosity against us. The whole question was brought
before Lord Palmerston by Sir G. Beuhain in one of those
despatches, than which none more admirable were ever
sent to a Government. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. Bonham fairly
put before the noble lord the whole of the bearings of the
case, and the disadvantages which would accrue from our
not enforcing that part of the treaty. All the rubbish we
heard about the Chinese not being sufficiently afraid was
urged then as now ; but Sir George Benham came to the
conclusion that the advantages of enforcing the treaty
would be as nothing compared with the risk and the
danger accompanying it.; and the noble lord, in one of
those admirable letters which he wrote to Sir George Ben-
ham, stated distinctly that "it had always appeared to
him to be doubtful whether the right, of entering the city
of Canton would be productive of any material advantage
to British residents, while it had been plain- that the unre-
stricted entrance of British residents into that city might
lead to disputes and collisions between British subjects and
Chinese, the consequences of which might be serious."
(Hear, hear.) What was the advantage to be gained, then,
in the opinion of the noble lord and Sir G. Bonham—not
by the indiscriminate entranee into Canton, be it observed,
of the commercial English. No ; that was deemed to be
undesirable on all sides, and in 1819 the noble lord only de-
sired that the -English superintendent and consul should
have access to the Chinese authorities on special occasions
at Canton. No doubt that object was a very desirable
one; desirable in 1819, and desirable now. But in 1849
the noble lord sail that that object, however desirable in
itself, was not worth a naval and military operation ; and
accordingly he resolved—not to renounce it, but to suspend
it indefinitely, and that for reasons which applied more
strongly at the present day than it did at that time ; be-
cause if ever the treaty was to be enforced by naval and
military operations, surely the time to do it was when the
treaty was fresh, and our moral claim had not been weak•
ened by its baying been left in abeyance seven or eight
years. If the reason that we did not urge it then was the
preju lice which existed on the part of the inhabitants of
Canton, and the noble lord bad wisely left it until time
had softened that prejudice, could weexpect that prejudice
now to diminish when we had bombarded the city, and
every Chinese, who bad lost brother or son in the conflict,
was bursting for revenge ? Whilst, therefore, he (sir E.
B. Lytton) admired the policy of the noble lord in 1811,
he must say that he was greatly astonished that he should
have lent Isis sanction to a diametrically opposite policy in
1851 Lor 1 Melrnesbary also wisely enforced the' precau-
tion which the noble lord had laid down; and Lord Cla-
Tendon wafethe first of our ministers, who, listening to the
siren voice of Sir John Bearing, had plunged us into
this Charybdis. (Hear, hear.) With reg trd to Sir J. B
rw-
ling they all knew that he was an able and accomplished
man ; but he was also a man of enthusiastic temperam
and like all men of genius was very desirous of carrying
out his own wishes. From the first he was seized by a
strong ambition at all hazards to force an entrance into
Canton ; and although he did not doubt that Sir J. Bow-
ring was a humane and honourable man towards his own
countrymen, yet when agents of European Governments
came in contact with Oriental nations the interests of hunia-
.uity and justice required of a wise Government, far re-
moved from the scene, to sterols° tho most vigilant check
upon the acts of those agents ; and when the Government
gave its unqualified approval to the proceedings of men
like Sir John Bowring and Mr. Consul Parkes. the latter
vanished from the eye, and it was only with the Govern-
ment, that we have to deal. Here, then, in his place as a
representative of the people, it was the Government that
ho charged. He charged them with sanctioning an ordi-
nance which, rtnkn awn to Parliament, had turned into a
dead letter that grand actof the Imperial Legislature which
regulated the whole trade and navigation of the country.
He charged them with enforcing that ,ordinence by violat-
ing the law of nations and the spirit of English honour.
Ie charged them with lending the authority of the Crown
to a homicide under false pretences, belying the generous
character of our country, and offensive to every sentiment
of right and justice of which our nature could approve.
We were told that we must teach China a lesson by means
of force, but China knew and dreaded our force, and the
only thing he questioned was the friendliness of our inten-
tions and the simple rectitude of our objects. (Hear; hear.)
He contended that in dealing with nations less civilised
than ourselves it was only by lofty truth and forbearance
that we could succeed in conciliating them, and that our
commercial interests would never prosper in China by
making ourselves the objects of detestation-to its people.
(Cheers.)
- - -

Mr. L. DAVIES opposed the resolution.
Sir J. RAMSDEN could net agree that the house
was to put out of view the question whether or not
the Chinese authorities hal broken the treaty. That was
a point which, he thought, met them at every turn. Much
had been said about the illegality of the register granted to
the lorcha; but it must be remembered that when the or-
dinaece authorising registers was formally transmitted to
Commissioner Yeti, nearly a year before these disputes, he
made no objection whatever. He had, therefore, precluded
himself from objecting to these registers afterwards, He
quite concurred in the opinion of Mr. Cobden, that, the
bloodshed and destruction of property at Canton imparted
A gloomy complexion to the question ; and if ho could de-
tect any feeling of anger or animosity against the Chinese
on the part of either the consul or the admiral, there was
no censure he would not be prepared to inflict upon them.
But such was not the case ; anti the only error lie thought
Sir J. Bowriug had committed was in supposing that the
lorcha hal forfeited her register, when she certainly had
not. He read the proclamation of Commissioner Yoh,
offering 100 dollars for the head of every Englishman, and
indignantly repudiated the idea of international law being
applied to a people a ho could sanction such outrages.
Sir. T. HERBERT, as havipg served in China, strongly
condemned the proceedings of Admiral Seymour.
Sir E. PERRY excited the laughter and ironical cheers of
the house by his opening remark that if this motion had come
from the Conservatives with a view to displace the Ministry, ,
he would have opposed it without reference to its merits. But
as he believed Mr. Cobden brought it forward on grounds
altogether independent of party feelings, he came to the con-
sideration of the question on its merits, and that considera-
tion led him to believe that the British authorities were alto-
gether in the wrong. Ho believed the Governor had been
urged on to his present course by the British merchants at
Canton, who were all engaged in the smuggling trade, and
who were, besides, all in debt to the Chinese, and would be
glad to have their debts cancelled by a war. He advised that
Government should now send a high Offic'al, backed by a
strong naval force to Mina, who might examine into the
points of dispute, and then act upon his own views of justice,
tempered with humanity, which the force at his disposal
would prevent being mistaken for fear.
Mr. GREGSON defended the British merchants at Canton,
and strongly reprobated the language iu which Mr. Cobden
and Sir E. Perry bad spoken of them He recommended Lord
Palmerston to insist on the strict performance of the Chinese,
as he had insisted on the strict performance of the Russian,
treaty.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I have every disposition to pay
respect to the wishes and opinions of the British merchants
trading with Canton. At the same time, though every ono
must allow duo weight to their opinions and representations,
we must not forget, according to the motion of the boa. gen-
tleman the member for the West Riding, that it becomes the
House of Commons seriously to contemplate what has taken
place, and determine upon, according to our own views, the
rights, interests, and honour
.of our country, and not allow
our opinions to be entirely guided by any set of merchants,
however respectable, or by any local views however naturally
entertained. (Hear, hear.) With that opinion, I listened
with great attention, and with no less anxiety to the state-
ment of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the
Colonies. I had hoped that the ambiguity which had seemed
to rest upon the policy of her Majesty's Government might be
dispelled by the statement which he would make ; that some
new argument might be adduced ; but above all, that some
new view of a distinet policy might be unfolded, to which
Parliament might look for future security. Sir, I am sorry to
say that in all these particulars the speech of my right hon. 1
friend is a disappointment. (Hear.) The question is naturally

divided, as it appears to me, under three heads—the Ist, the
licensing the lorcha Arrow ; 2dly, our entrance into Canton
demanded according to treaty ; and 3dly, the policy which
her Majesty's Governmda intend to pursue ; and tlfe oljects
at which they aim in the—hostilities which have been carried
on in China. ( dear.) Now with respect to the first pointy I
need not detain the house long, and especially as I need net
enter into the question- of the triple illegality to w:iich my I
bon, friend (Mr. Cobden) has referred. That argument has
stated, by him with great perspicuity, while the goner 1
law of nations as bearing upon the case has just been laid •
I
down by the hon. and-learned gentleman the member for
Devonport (Sir .E. Perry). There has, however, been a -
statement made by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the
'Colonies, which, though it apparently burs upon the ques-
tion, in reality; as it Kerns to me, does not touch the facts
at all. The right hon. gentleman states that for a long time-
-200 years, be says—however, it matters not how long the
feriod, in certain of our colonies a practice prevailed of grant-
ing licences to colonial- Vessels within particular limits and
for particular specified purposes. No doubt those passes have
been given, and no doubt they were legal, so far as they were
not in coutravention of any act of the Imperial Parliament.-
If they are iu contravention of any act of the Imperial Par-
liament, I conceive they have no force or efficacy. Now, with
regard to the particular question of the licensing of the lorcha
Arrow, it seems that Parliament has declared that exceptions
were to be made with regard to British vessels and British
ownership, but as there-were exceptions, certain rules were
laid down by which the use-of those privileges was strictly
guarded. Amongst the rules, therefore, was ono that every
ordinance of the colony should be sanctioned by her Majesty•
in Council. That, I imagine. cannot be evaded nor set aside ;
and that, I believe, has not been observed with regard to the
ordinances at Hong Kong. But, sir, there is a much more
serious question, for the point bef ,re us is, not whether at
Gibraltar or Malta there might be passes granted which would
be effectual for certain purposes ; but the question is whether
those passes, when given to persons who are the subjects of
another country, can avail to override the law of that coma-
try I (Lou-I cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, sir, as an ex-
ample of what I mean—and I will refer elsewhere, as my
right honourable friend says that with regard to the Chinese
be need not be as particular as with others. Take the case
of Gibraltar ; there are many Spauiards residing there. Sup-
pose that oue of them had been a resident for :5 years, and
got the command of one of those vessels—that he had on
board a number of Spaniards, amongst whom he had em-
ployed a man who had been lately guilty of piracy—does any
oue believe that if this vessel were to go to Malaga or Albu-
ceras, and that, if this p'rate were recognised, the Spanish
authorities w tild hesitate to take him out of the vessel and
make him subject to their jurisdiction ? In this respect I con-
ceive that the general law must prevail. Although your own
law may hold good in your own pOrts, it cannot be made to
prevail in other countries of which the crew of the particular
vessel ate subjects. And will any man tell me that supposing
the Governor of Malaga or Albuceras had arrested the man,
and that he was detained by the Spanish authorities, that the
governor would have ventured to order the commander of
her Majesty's ship to attack. either of those places, and to
burn and destroy the Spanish vessels and ports about the.
place ? (Hear, hear.). I think, sir, that all will agree in
saying that no such course would be adopted. It might have
been that the Spanish authorities were wrong—the case would
tl:en have been referred home, and the Government at home
would have applied to the Spanish authorities for redress,
which would, no doubt, ultimately be given. (Hear, hear.)
And lot me say again with regard to this part of the question,
and every part of the question which forms the gist of the
accusation of the hon. member for the West Riding, that it
is not our authorities at Canton who have raised the disputed
question, but by force of arms our officials have attempted
the solution of that for which no such urgency was requited.
And after all this they appeal to the authorities. Then we
come to the next question, wh'oh is one of great importance
—that is, as to our right to enter into the city- of Can-
ton. The terms of the treaty are. explicit enough ; • they
give us the right to enter that city, as well as the other
ports. But that question bas been postponed from time to
time, awl the noble lord at the head of the Government
and the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs have re-
spectively stated most able reasons and arguments against
pressing that question. It is one of those advantages .wor,h
possessing, if obtained by fair negotiation, but the whole ad-
vantage of it is destroyed by a re, ort to arms. Well, Sir J.
Bowring, unfortunately, did not take that view of the sub-
ject. But more than this, ho has added to this difficult ques-
tion, which had not been solved from the year 1842 to 185 G,
that of a quarrel already existing, and this state of things has
naturally embittered and aggravated the differences between
the Chinese Government and the local Government of Hong
Kong. I can well imagine that the British Government
might say our treaty rights have not been fulfilled ; we have
suffered • we will state those injuries to the Chinese Govern-
ment, and unless those injuries aro within a certain period re-
dressed, we give notice of it that we shall consider it as a
castes ben and equivalent to a declaration of war. So great
a question ought not to be solved without the full, slow, and
deliberate determination of the. British Government. . This.
might be politic. It would certainly give the Chinese Go-
vernment a certain time to determine upon the course they
should take. It would, at least, be iu conformity with the
usage of civilised nations, and not in contradiction to your
own treaty rights.. But what has been done by Sir J.
Bowring and Sir M. Seymour ? This question of the Arrow
took place, I believe, on the Bth of October. On the
21st and 22d the Commissioner Yeh wrote letters which
certainly appear to me to be very like an at/stogy for the
outrage, although Sir John Bowring said the language
was evasive. It is remarkable that one of the seamen on
board the Arrow shows by his evidence that the animus was
not to insult the British Government, for he says that the
mandarin came on board, and looking around, said, " There
is no captain here ; there is no Englishman here ; this can-
not be a British vessel, it must be Chinese, and therefore
take down the flag." Well, is not that a proof that if there
wore an Englishman on board he avould not have hauled down
the flag, but would have asked him quietly to remedy the
grievance of which he complained. (Hear, hear.) Besides
this and other evidence of their mild intentions the commis-
sioner bad restored the 12 seamen that bad been taken, and
declared that never again should a foreign lorcha be deprived
of her men or have her flag hauled down. I think this case
was a very paltry affair in the beginning, and Sir John Bow-
ring might have easily arranged it by saying that he would
report it to his government at home. But, instead of that
course, on the 22d of October, Sir John Bowring and Admi-
ral Seymour make a positive demand that the entrance into
the city shall begranted, and instead of giving three months,
or one month, or one week, they proceed at once on the same
day to destroy the forts, and to recommence warlike opera-
tions. (Hear, hear.) Now, it is upon this point I think that
the responsibility of the government commences. In the first
instance they receive front Sir John Bowring and Admiral
Seymour an account of the hauling down of the flag of the
Arrow, and of the taking of an Imperial junk in consequence.
The Foreign Secretary says that the saw officers of the
Crown were consulted, and that they declared that the
Arrow was legally entitled to the privileges of a British
vessel. The goVernment wrote their approval of the conduct
of the authorities at Canton, and say " You have done right
in taking possession of the mperial junk." So far uo great
harm was done, but still I think a caution should have been
added not to pursue hostilities further. , But when they re-
ceived, at the end of December, an account of further hos-
tilities—that Sir J. Bowring and Sir Michael Seymour had of
their own authority undertaken to raise this great question,
upon which the whole of the amicable intercourse with China
depended, it seems to me that her Majesty's Government
should have considered that those officials had committed a
serious offence—that they had without just cause placed in
jeopardy the amicable relations with a great and populous
empire, and that they had presumed to take upon themselves
the solution of a question which three separate Secretaries of
State had decided in the clearest and most explicit language
should not be decided without a reference to the hems go-
vernment, and without due deliberation on theirpart.. On
January the 10th the "noble earl at the head of our foreign af-
fairs informs Sir J. Bowring that " her Majesty's Govern-
ment entirely approves of the course adopted by Sir
Machael Seymour and yourself." Now, Ido think that this
is a very serious matter. I think that the giving of such
approbation in those few words, without explicit instruc.
tions —without saying what was to be done under the cir-
cumstances—without any notice of the-assumption of autho-
i_rity—l think, sir, that this was a neglect of the solemn duty
imposed, upon her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.)
Well, now I come to another question. It does seem to
me, serious as matters are, that it is one which especially
demands the consideration of Parliament, and upon which
hitherto we have had no information from the Govern nent.
The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies says
we are not at war with China. Well, if we are not at war
with China, it certainly is not the fault of Sir John Bowring,
or Admiral Seymour, or her Majesty's Government. (Hear.)
It is the result of the forbearance of the Chinese Government
fdr not immediately, in all the other parts of the empire, de-
claring that we must be considered as carrying on hostilities.
Although I do not admire the Chinese civilisation, I do not
believe that any power in Europe would allow their forts to
be battered down, their towns to be set on fire in one or two
places, and not resent it as an attack upon the independence
and the integrity of the empire. The Chinese have not done
so, and happily we are not at war with them. On the Bth
of Oct., and the following day's, Consul Parkes asked that the
mon of the lorcha should be returned; that some kind of
apology should be made for hauling down the flag, and that
an indemnity should be paid to the owner of the Arrow for
the time they had boon incarcerated. Well that was not a
very serious demand. Oct the 27th of the same month they
proceeded to add to that demand a further demand which
could hardly be claimed without a resort to extensive hostili-
ties—viz., the -entrance into the city of Canton. 'On the
25th November Sir John Bowring wrote to M. de Courcy on
the subject of this claim, and that gentleman had replied to
him 'with a degree of, prudence and discretion which I wish
were imitated by our own officers, namely, that he had
withdrawn his forces which bad previously acted in con-
junction with the English ; that he would not undertake
any further operations without the authority of the Emperor
of the French. Sir J. Bowring then writes to this gentleman
to say that he was very sorry to find that the tricolour had
disappeared; that he thanked him for the assistance and
moral aid he had already given him in connection with the
grave events in China, " which cannot but have an important
bearing upon the question that deeply concerns us all, namely,
the revision of our tariff iu China." Now, what does this
mean I You are entitled to ask whether it was wise to re-
quire of China that she should completely execute the treaty
made by Sir H. Pottinger in 1842. But this is quite another
question. Yon have no right to a revision of treaties—to
new terms such as being admitted to all other parts of the
empire, wiihout going to war, or being held as a justifiable
cause of war, I defy you to say that the hauliug down of
the flag of the miserable Arrow, and the refusal after almost
an understandiug had been come to since 1849 that the Bri-
tish should not enter Canton—l defy you to say that you
have a justifiable cause of war with China, or even that you
can claim a 'right of the revision of those treaties on account
of those two miserable.differences at Canton. But where is
this to end ? What is the meaning of it ? You say that we are
not at war with China; that we have merely a local quarrel
with the authorities at Canton. But this new treaty which
you demand cannot be granted by the governor of Canton, it
can only be granted by the Emperor at Pekin, and upon a
reference to the great interests of the empire. For my part, I
do not wish these operations to go on. I fear they may
lead to
a long and broody conflict ; bat especially, in the disorganised
state of China, I apprehend that they will lead to social
anarchy—to a rupture
,of relations between man and man,
and.to a cessation with this country of those advantk:cous
relations of commerce which have hitherto existed ; and for.
the purpose of a very doubtful good we risk the possessionof
all those enormous benefits_ The hon. gentleman who has
just spoken alluded to the resentment which char:fctwerhiiseehs.
the conduct of the Chinese. Many of those
we complain have been committed by low offences
vagabonds. (Hear.)
in e
He tells you at the same time a the great increase
trade of silk and tea. Well, I ask, is the whole prospect of
our friendly commerce with that country, which
J.
so advan.
tageous, to be sacrificed by some whim of Sir Bowring,
who, in order to gratify it, hesitates not to plunge us into a
war ? (Hear.) Wo are not, up to this moment, informed
what the exact nature of those demands are. How do we
know but that Sir John Bowring is m
at
otshtiscomerocmivsentmmeaanksinigu
fresh demands, and is adopting the
his power to enforce them. But the-right hon. gentleman the
Secretary for the Colonies says that we must emancipate
China from her cruel and tyrannical Government.
Mr. LABOUCHERE —The noble lord has not correctly re-
presented what I said. I said I hoped that the result of
those proceedings would be to emancipate Canton how it,

govarunient, which I believe to be one of the greatest PO-
Bible curses. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I believe that this idea takes the
shape of a new demand, And that not satisfied with the
appointments _which the Emperor of China -makes, this
governor at Canton is to be disp'aced iu order to make
room for somebody else, who perhaps will be recommended
by the Colonial Secretary of this country to his attention.
(Laughter). - The 'experience which her Majesty's Govern. -
melt lately had at Naples will no doubt suffice to instruct
them in regard to the internal government of China (Hear.)
Commissioner Yell is said to be a very bad governor. I am
told that he is likely to be disavowed. That, however, does
not appear to be the case. The right hon. gentleman said
he was high in favour with the Emperor, and therefore not
likely to be removed. His views am probably adopted by
the Government of Pekin. Well, if that he the case, I think
you have a right fairly to demand, but not certainly to inter-
fere with the appointments of the Emperor of China. Per-
haps, indeed, ho might say, " After all, my commission'r
may be a very tyrannical, violent man, but I cannot say that
your superintendent is a very mild and moderate individual."
(Hear.) That a mandarin looking after a pirate in a doubtful
case should have led to such consequences of bloodshed and
destruction eannot be too much lamentel— (hear, hear)—but,
sir, I regret to find that in all- the papers laid before Parlia-
ment, and amongst all the terms of approbation applied to
the resident and the admiral, there is not one single• expres-
sion to intimate that the Government lament those sad events.
There is no expression of sorrow at it. (Hear.) I think it
would have been decent of them to have expressed that feel-
ing. I find that in other cases where the flag of a nation has
been used to protect criminal pursuits, my noble friend at
the head of the Government has with just indignation co n-
plained of such an unjust prostitution of the flag. I find
that my noble friend, in a letter to the American Govern-
moot in 1840, respecting a Spanish vessel, with a Spanish '
crew, which was engaged in the slave trade, and sailed under
a licence granted by the American consul at Cuba—l find in
that document, after stating at some length the general pri-
vilege from search enjoyed by vessels bona fide sailing under
the flag of a friendly nation, my noble friend, alluding to
vessels trading in slaves,- said that these vessels could not
expect to evade the right of search "by hoisting a piece of
bunting with the stars and stripes of the United Stites." -
(Loud cheers.) Sir, had opinions like these prevailed amongst
the authorities at Canton they would have said, " You must
search this vessel in order to see whether she has papers.;“
and they would have found that her registry had expired—
(hear, hear)—that according to Sir J. Bowling's own law she-
was not entitled to protection, and thus the case would have •
fallen as it ought to have fallen. (Cheers.) But, infortu-
nately, I must say that I think the worst part of this case,
and one which Ido not see has been censured by her Ma-
jesty's Government, was-that Sir J. Bowling, while he de.
clared that this vessel had lost all right to British protection,
still sets up her claim to that protection against the Chinese
commissioner, and tells him to apologise for -this insult to the
British flag which has been unlawfully used, (Loud cheers
from the OppoSition.) Sir, I have heard a great deal Bleb'
—too much, indeed--about the prestige this vountry-
(Flear.); We used to hear of the character of England, of the
honour of England, of the reputation of England. I trust, sir,
that time character, and the honour, and the reputation of this
country will ever be dear ti us all. (Cheers.) But as to the
prestige ieplirated from thoie qualities—separated from
character, separated from honour, separated from reputation
—I have no wish to see it maintained. (Renewed cheering.)
Some persons have said, " It is true, we have a bad case ; it
is true we have acted. with injustice ; but we must persevere
iu the wrong ; we must continue to do that injusti e, or
otherwise the Chinese will think we are afraid of them." In
reply to that 'statement, I on this occasion say, " Be just and
fear not." (Hear, hear, and great cheering.), On the point
of prestige Ido net pretend to judge ; but I cannot but con-
sider that the honour of this country will be raised more than •
ever when it can be said that a troublesome, meddlesome
official, having prostituted the arms of England, and induced
a brave admiral to commence hostilities which should never
have been begun. the English House of Commons declared
that they would be no party to that conduct —(loud cheers)
—that neither for commercial advantage, nor for political ad•
vantages, nor for any other possible advantage to the coml•
try, would they consent to stain that honour which, after all,
has been and must be the sure foundation of her greatness.
(Loud and general cheering continued for some time after the .
noble lord had resumed his seat.)
Mr. LOWE said that when he considered the signal
favour-with which the speech of the noble lord had been ni
ceived—(cheers)—he should ask the indulgence of the hones
while he stated one or two points which had not been
touched. on before that evening. The noble lord had said
that we could not give the Chinese any right as againit
their Emperor. The hon. baronet opposite (Sir E. Bulwer
Lytton) had taken the same ground. (IlePr, hear.) If that
doctrine were good a great many British ships would lose
the protection they now enjoyed ; all would bo excluded
from that protection except ships British-built, British-owned,
and Britisirtnatined. Hong Kong had been ceded to England,
and the inhabitants handed over to English Government. It
had been said that these poisons remained Chinese subjects;
but that proposition could not bo maintained, for all that a
country could do to cast off its subjects had been done by the
Chinese Government in the case of the inhabitants of Hong
Kong. These people were quag subjects of the British Croirne
and they might be indicted for high treason did they take up
arms against her Majesty. That point had not been sufficiently
considered. And what condition could be more miserable than
that of the Chinese, if they had lost the protection of the
Chinese Government without having obtained that of this
country? It was to give them this protection that the disputed
ordinance had been promulgated ; and this was a bureaus
regulation, which the house ought to uphold for the sake's!!
humanity. The ordinance was legal in its inception, and it
was for those who disputed it to show that it had since be-
come illegal. As to the Arrow not being under protection
at the time of the arrest he denied, that proposition. IR
fact, the construction put upon the rule by the hon. baronet
(Sir E. B. Lytton) was too monstrous for reception by the
human mind. The grammatical construction of the rule
might admit of some doubt, but not such a one as would
prevail against the manifest intention of the rule if- the
matter were brought before a competent tribunal for a de-
cision. If British protection had, been refused to this
lorcba, what would have been the indignation of the bola,
member for time West Riding at the wretched quibbling and
sophistry of the British agents in China ? But the gantlets
was not merely a legal one, but one relating to the animus of
the Chinese authorities against this country. A letter from
Sir J. Bowring to Commissioner Yeb, in Nov , 1855, about 11
months before the occurrence under discussion, informed that
governor -that all persons, natives included, in Hen Kong
could obtain for their vessels protection by registration. This
letter also contained a warning to the, Chinese ou the subject
of interference with vessels so prOtectea. Ne remonstrance wss
merle to this letter. Therefore the Chinese did not in the Al'
row ease act from ignorance of the effect of the colonial regit-
tration. Much as be deplored the consequences that had en-
sued from the proceedings at Canton, it appeared to him that
not upon the British authorities in China or the governineet
at home, but upon those who committed the Lavrless and
advised act of seizing the crew of the lorcha, rested the re-
sponsibility of those consequences. He was no advocate for
dealing with Oriental powers on different principles as far ae
justice was concerned, from those which regulatedour deal-
ings with European powers. Conscience was of no country,
and the laws of morality and justice wore at least as exten-
sive as the world in which we lived, (A_laugh and oh.) But
in the manner of dealing with Oriental people,- in cases where
affront had been put upon us, there was a difference. Tiaras
that they proportioned their conduct towards those with
whom they came in contact by their own ideas of their power
of defending themselves, and aggressions which a great
nation could afford to pass over when committed
by a member, of the civilised confederacy of Europe must be
dealt with promptly and punished on the spot, Tho violence
in the present case did not come from us. blit froni the Chinese
themselves: They were offered every opportunity of apology
if they had chosen to avail themselves of it. They were re-
quested to return the twelve men and they did 'so. (Hear,)
But then they were to return them publicly: that was, ado
mit before the face- of the people, in whose presence theg'
dishonoured the British flag, that they were bound to make
reparation. The insult_to our honour they declined to redresh
and they had declined that redress up to this very day. It
might not be very philosophical, perhaps, to,connect with It
flag which; after all, was only a bit of painted linen, ideas or
national glory and dignity : and he dared say.that the asso:
elation of ideas rested on no very Metaphysical principles.
If this flag had been torn -down by the Chinese and a little
soiled in the encounter—(oh)--it probably could be washed
again—(oh, oh)---at all events, the constituents of the hotz,
member for the West Riding could turn out a new one. (11!,
uewed cries of " Oh.") This flag, which hon. gentlemen
opposite sneered at —(vehement shouts of " Ne")—brave and
noble men had nailed to the mast, and rather gone down with
it in the depths of the ocean than endure the ignominy of
hauling it down in the face of an enemy : and they did wisely
and worthily, for those emblems and symbols mere emblems
and symbols though they were—of the power and duty of
a nation, had themselves a power and an influence over tti•
human mind, and in proportion as we guarded and respected
them se would they- be guarded and respected by own
people. (Cheers.)

Mr. S. WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. GIBSON understood that the two resolutions had been
put from the chair as one but the original manuscript which
was handed in by his-hon. friend when ho gave his notice seps,
rated the motion into two, with the figures "r and "2" pre-
fixed ; whilst the word "-resolutions," not " resolution " was
written at the top. It was clear, therefore, thattit was the
intention of his hon. friend to submit his motion in two dis-
tinct propositions; and he hoped that, as it did not appear on
the paper in the fox:m in which it was handed in, the housi
would consent to its being altered and submitted in the fe!:na
in which it was intended by his hon. friend.

The SPEAKER said there could be no doubt that it leap
the original intention of the hon. member° for the woo
Ridiag to put in two resolutions, though by some naistalia of
the printer they appeared on the paper as one. The house
would remember, however, that when the hon. member eat
down after addressing the house, he did not make any mo-
tion ; he (the Speaker) was, therefore, left to infer thal,ha
meant to move what he found on the paper, and there beeog
no distinction by number of the two resolutions, and not be.
ing interrupted by the hon. member when reading thou; he
certainly put them as one. Of course, if the house saw no
objection, they could still be separated ; but the motion for
bthoeadjournmwenitthodfulthrmedebate and the original motion must
first be
Mr. COBDEN said his intention was, undoubtedly, to
move the resolutions separately, and he was utterly at a
use more eia
loss to conceive how the mistake had arisen. He thought
directions ought to be given the printer to
dealing with the manuscripts that were put into his hinds,
for he observed that a penciil mark had been run through the
figure ~ 2,,' and the word ' resolutions" converted into ties
singular from the plural.
Lord PALMERSTON apprehended the house could not
reasonably object to allow the hon, member to move his reso-
lution in the manner he had originally intended—but he must
say that he rather incumbent i
upon the hon.
thought it ii•as
gentleman to have looked at the votes and seen whether his
notice was printed in the ma
to the house. (Hear.) R nner he proposed to submit the
member who had a •ad he exercised that care which every
motion to make
and just hear whether the shouldnaturally '
exercise,
not, the mistake would have
itons were properly pat or
avoided, He was sure,
however, the house would •
oppo-
thetion to the change,not be disposed to offer any
t chair • but allow the resolution to be put front
in the manner the h
tended. on. gentleman said he first in-
The
.motion for adjourning the debate and the original mo-
tion were then withdrawn,
the chair. and the first resolution put from
theOn •
motion of Mr..WARREN, the debate was then ad-
journed. , . •
Mr. ROEBUCK—To what day I
Lard PALMERSTON--To this day. (Hear, heir.)
The• Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was
then passed through committee ; and
The house adjourned at twenty minutes past twelve.

LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG.
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun OffiC4, No.
112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the county
of Aliddlemex, Friday, February 27, ]657.