The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-25 00:00:00

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.:

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the wool-
lack at four o'clock, at which time the house presented
very animated appearance. The space before the
throne was crowded, and the galleries at each side were
also very fully attended by ladies. A large number of
the members of the House of Commons were present.
Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, occupied a seat in
the peeresses gallery.
Lord SAYE and SELE presented a petition fromnd
h
Hereford, deprecating the bombardment of Canton and
the expedition to Persia, and praying that the house
would exercise a proper control over the foreign policy
of the Government.
• ROYAL MARINE FORCE BILL.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this bill was
read a third time.
THE HOSTILITIES AT CANTON.
The Earl of DERBY having presented a number of
petitions emanating from various localities, and express.
ing, as the noble earl said, what he believed to be the
feeling of the country generally, complaining of the un-
necessary destruction of life at Canton, resulting from
the unnecessary bombardment of that city by the British
naval forces under Admiral Seymour, by direction of Sir
d. Bowring, and setting forth that that constitutional
principle which invests the Queen alone with the pre-
rogative of declaring war and making peace has
been violated in these proceedings, and praying that
an order might be immediately issued for suspending
hostilities, and recalling the three officers by whom,
and at whose instance, the prerogative of the Crown
has been violated, proceeded to introduce the motion of
which he had given notice. He said—My lords, I am
'now about to address the highest judicial assembly in
the world, and I wish I could persuade myself that in
so doing every member of that august assembly would
approach the consideration of the important question I
have to bring before them in a purely judicial spirit ;
that they would regard it in reference to no considera.
Lions except those of equity, justice, and humanity—
(hear, hear)—and, above all, they would dismiss from
their minds on this occasion every consideration con-
nected with party politics or party feeling—(hear)—for,
Illy lords, if I can succeed in persuading this house to
deal with the question in this purely judicial spirit, I for
own part have such entire confidence in the strength
of my case, that I should have no fear whatever as to the
decision to which your lordships would arrive. My lords,
I confess I am likely to be on this occasion bat an irn-
-Perfect advocate ; but, however imperfect I may be, I
can assure your lordships I am an advocate on conviction
of the justice of the cause I have espoused—an advocate
disioterested—tbe unpaid advocate of the cause which
I believe to be that of true policy, of justice,
and of humanity. (Hear, hear.) lam here, my lords,
the advocate of weakness against power, the advocate of
perplexed and bewildered barbarism against the unjust
and arrogant demands of overwhelming and self-satisfied
civilisation, the advocate of the feebleness of a distant and
half-civilised nation against the overpowering might of
the British empire. (Cheers.) And, my lords, it in no way
deters. me or creates the slightest doubt on my mind in
the strength of my case when I reflect that I am bring-
ing it before a tribunal composed of British peers ; nor
does it deter or discourage me when I remember that
that case must be taken upon the statements and official
documents furnished by the very parties whose conduct
lam about to impugn. On those documents lam con-
tent to rest—on those documents I rely, and on the facts
and statements contained in those documents I appeal
With the most entire confidence to the judgment of your
lordships. (Hear.) I would pray your lordships to consi-
der for a moment what is the position in which we now
find our relations with China. As your lordships are aware
We have now for a very considerable number of years
carried on trade with that country to a vast extent, a
trade of deep importance to this country, and which was
largely and rapidly increasing—a trade of vital import.
ance to England in the supply of one of the principal ar-
ticles of consumption, tea ; and in that single article, in
the course of the last ten years, from 41 million lbs. to
87 million lbs. a year have been consumed. In silk, too,
though he had not the figures, the increase had been
almost a.s large and as rapid. Upon the whole, that trade,
though it has been carried on under peculiar circum-
Stances and under considerable difficulties, has been car-
ried on with great success, and with mutual satisfaction,
to the advantage of both countries. Well, my lords, it
new appears that without any dissatisfaction having
arisen, without any previous warnings that trade, in the
principal article to which I have alluded, has been com-
pletely put an end to ; the most hostile and the bit.
terest feelings have been engendered between the
people of Canton and the British merchants ; between
the British traders and the native population. But not
only is your trade stopped, and the goods of your mer-
chants sequestered to the extent, as I am informed, of
something like a milion and a half of dollars—not only
have all your commercial speculations with China been
suspended, but at this moment, without warrant from the
Crown, and without any declaration of war, we are in a
tqate of actual war with China—a war carried on under
ey.cumistancee of aggravation and severity unknown in
the ordinary wars of modern times. You had seizures of
the merchant junks, the capture and destruction of the
forts of a friendly power ; you have had the walls of a
friendly city battered down and stormed, but without
succeeding in making a practicable breach, and you
have had the residences of private and unresisting
persons fired upon by a British admiral, and a de-
fenceless town bombarded and shattered by British
been of war. Is this a state of things which your
lordships can justify to yourselves, or which Par-
liament can justify to itself, to pass over in silence,
without demanding from the Minister a full explanation—
if explanation can be given ; and if not, without stamp-
ing it with your reprobation 1 (Hear.) My lords, I
will endeavour to state the facts of the case as dispas-
sionately as I can, without exaggerating or colouring,
and if in bringing the case before you I am compelled to
make a very considerable trespass upon your patience, I
am quite sure that as long as I confine myself strictly to
the subject, I may with confidence throw myself on that
indulgence for which I have so often had occasion to be
deeply grateful to your lordships. It may be convenient,
in the first 'instance, that I should call your lordships'
attention to the particular articles of the treaty, the al-
leged infraction of which has been made the excuse for
these violent proceedings. The treaty in question is the
one that is termed the Supplementary Treaty, and was
entered into on Oct. 8, 1843, and supplementary to the
original treaty of 1842, which, as your lordships will re-
Member, was in some measure extorted from the Chinese
Government at the close of the war. The two articles
of this supplementary treaty to which I shall call your
lordship' attention are the 9th and the 17th. The 9th
article runs as follows :
"If lawless natives of China, having committed crimes
or offencea against their own government, shall flee to
Hong Kong, or to the English ships of war, or English mer-
chant ships, for refuge, they shall, if discovered by the
English officers, be handed over at once to the Chinese
officers for trial and punishment ; or if, before such disco-
very be made by the English officers, it should be ascer-
tained or suspected by the officers of the government of
China whither such criminals and offenders have fled, a
communication shall be made to the proper English officer
in order that the said criminals and offenders may be rigidly
searched for, seized, and, on proof or admission of their
guilt, delivered up."
Now, my lords, under the terms of this article, it follows
that any Chinese offender being discovered in the colony
of Hong Kong, or on board a British man-of-war, or an
English merchant ship, is not to be seized by the Chinese
authorities, but is to be demanded of the British consul,
• and by him seized and given up. The 17th article pro-
vides that:—
" Various small vessels belonging to the English nation,
called schooners, cutters, lurches, &c., have not hitherto
been chargeable with tonnage dues. It is now agreed, in
relation to this class of vessels,
which ply between Hong
Kong and the city, and the city
,
and Macao,thatehifallt,hez
only carry passengers, letters, and._ baggage, they
heretofore, pay no tonnage dues but if these small craft
carry any dutiable articles, no matter how small the quan-
tity may be, they ought, in principle, to pay their full ton-
nage dues. But this class of small craft are not like the
large ships which are engaged in foreign trade ; they
are constantly coming and going ; they make several trips a
month, and are not like the large foreign ships, which, on
entering the port, cast anchor at Whampoa. we were to
place them on the same footing as the large foreign ships, the
charge would be unequal ; therefore, after this, the smallest
of these craft shall be rated at 75 tone, and the largest not to
exceed 150 tons ; whenever they enter the port (or leave the
Port with cargo), they shall pay tonnage dues at the rate of
one mace per ton register. If not so large as 75 tons they
shall still be considered and charged as of 75 tons • and if
they exceed 150 tone, they shall be considered aslaragtetfo-
reign ships, and, like them, charged tonnage dues,
of 5
mace per register ton. Foe-chow and the other ports
ing none of this kind of intercourse, and none of this
html of small craft, it would be unnecessary to make any
arrangement as rards them. The following are the rules
by which they e are to be regulated ;—lst
British
sailing letter or
register in Chinese, and
&c., shall have a . Every
schooner, cutter
under the seal and signa-
ture of the chief suand.English,
appearance. burtho Every schooner,
perintendentof trade, describing her
'orals, and Feel, n, &c. 2d.
sale are required vessel, shall report herself, as large yes*
she carries cargo .lieo, at the Bocce Tigris ; awl when
pea, and shall, ou'
shall also report herself at Wham-
letter or register re
Canton, deliver up her sailing
permission from the 20 British Consul, who will obtain
which she is not to d°ll,o bore to discharge her cargo,
the forfeiture of the pine wi such permission, under
the general regtaationt,alct.ies laid down in the 3cl clause of
an outward
cargo is discharged, and trade.
gistor 3;1, When luVfhinententLediTtwakaredu
on board, and the duties
consul will restore the re Pn Leal arranged and paid, the
or sailing leiter, and allow
the vessel to depart."
Having read these articles, I
ships' attention to the he Ilsxt call your lord-
consul of the seizure of the lorehat niailheeryonthe British
ground for the whole of the suPlelvehqi srtitut,les the
Consul Parkes, writing to Sir J. 13o_, p ocee,angs.
Y r excellency that the
"Ling on Oct. 8,
"I have the honour to inform
suddenly boa dad
British lorcha Arrow-, while lyin nee:Rh
in the river near the Dutch Folly!
pinionedleavi and carried
this morning by a force of Chinese offiaese
large size and heavy armament, who rin
war boat of
away nearly, the whole of her crew,
1?olY two out
of 14 men on board, and added to this acntg significant insult of hauling down the nationaln violence
the
Now, my lords, this the consul and Sir J. le,eri-IP:nrn
Plain is a gross violation of the treat of 1 cum_
lorcha was strictly and honourably ayßritisi •Ide.esell,ftthhen
the seizure of those persons on board suspected of piracy
undoubtedly was a viinasmuch as they o olation of the article of the treaty,
consul, to have demanded them roefatthye
tou i 0 waalac,.l
this
takenug them away by force, but the ques-
tion veeee in the true sense of the term,
or

according to any reasonable and fair construction, a
British vessel ? If not, and she was not carrying the
British flag, and legally carrying the British flag, your
flaod
rras
sh i ps
the
willco mat onceplain e t
Rs
ofe ?beet
British
iti
th wholeco n
souf l tahnedcaths eso
e,
go-
vernment of Hong Kong is concerned, fa is to the
ground. Now the circumstances of the case, as I have
presented them to you, are most lamentable ; they would
be deeply to be lamented if the representatives of the
British Government could show that in pressing for re-
paration for this alleged injury every means had been
exhausted to arrive at an amicable settlement ere they had
recourse to force ; if they could show they had exercised
forbearance and conciliation until every indulgence ap- '
preached to the very verge of weakness ; that they had
left to the Chinese authorities every possible loophole to
escape, and every opportunity to apologise—nay more,
if such had been our conduct, that there were not the
shadow or the shade of suspicion in the justice of our
cause ; if there were not a flaw in our case—if, with all
this, the consequences had been what they have been, I
still say the state of things which has ensued would have
been lamentable. But if I show that so far from this
being the case—so far from forbearance and conciliation
having been exhausted, the whole of the correspondence
on the part of the British officials has been marked by the
utmost arrogance and haughtiness; that in the terms in
which they addressed the Chinese authorities they have
exhibited throughout the utmost disrespect and discour-
tesy; that they have refused to accept any explanations,
and have replied to every offer toexplain with threats and
menaces; and if I can show that further than this the le-
gality of the demand is more than doubtful ; that in point
of fact, in one sense of the word, according to the prin-
ciples of justice or equity, can the vessel in question be
considered as a British merchant vessel, and conse-
quently that from the first to the last there has been no
violation of the treaty there—l say that in the lament-
able occurrences that have taken place I shall have esta-
blished the position to which in the resolutions I am
about to submit I have called upon your lordship to
assent. In page 134 of the paper your lordships will
find an explanation put forward on the part of the gen-
tleman whose name has been introduced as having been
a party to the purchase of the lorcha Arrow—that gen-
tleman being Mr. Bloch, the Danish Consul. Now what
was there to constitute this vessel a British vessel ?
From this explanation it appears that she was built in
Canton by a Chinese in 1854 ; she was owned by a
Chinese; she was engaged in the coasting trade of
China ; she was captured by pirates ; she was recap-
tured by the Chinese naval forces ; she was sold on ac-
count of the Chinese authorities to a Chinese Hong of
Canton ; by that Hong she was sent over to the British
colony of Hong Kong ; negotiations were then entered
into to sell her to a Chinese resident of Hong
Kong ; and the bargain was almost concluded, when a
question arose as to the claim of the former owner, who
claimed as having been the owner at the time of her cap-
ture. This man was also a Chinese—one Quan-tai—a re-
sident of Macao. The question was referred to arbitra-
tion, and the award of the arbitrator was this—that the
sale from the Canton Hong to the Chinese resident of
Hong Kong would be valid and effectual ; but a difficulty
having been thrown in the way by the previous owner
putting forward his claim,compensation should be paid to
him to the extent of s2,loo—and by an arrangement
which, I confess, I am at a less to understand, supposing
the transaction to be bona fide--$l,OOO of that amount
was to be paid by the purchaser, and the other 1,000 by
the Chinese seller. And it appears further that Mr. Blank,
out of friendship for his compradore, advanced the whole
sum, and wrote off the $1,400 from the total amount of
the purchase money. Then here is a vessel Chinese
built, engaged in the Chinese trade, captured by
Chinese pirates, recaptured by Chinese war junks,
Chinese manned, Chinese bought, Chinese sold, and
Chinese owned—and yet this is to be regarded as a Bri-
tish vessel entitled to claim the benefit of the treaty by
which British merchant vessels are exempt from Chinese
interference. (Hear.) How was this metamorphosis of
a Chinese vessel into a British vessel accomplished 1 I
will tell your lordships. In March, 1855, the local legis-
lature of Hong Kong passed an ordinance on the ground
that " many illegal acts have resulted from the improper
use of registers granted at Hong Kong under the provi-
sions of the imperial acts to vessels ernpl iyed solely in
trading with the mainland of China, and it is necessary
that legal trading should be protected and illegal trading
prevented," and requiring by a series of enactments that
all British vessels shall have either an imperial or colt).
nial register, and that in the case of colonial vessels the
colonial register shall be renewed annually, and that se-
curity shall be given to comply with all British regula-
tions in regard to merchant shipping. So far, no doubt,
this ordinance might have had a beneficial effect in
doing what it was intended to do, viz., curbing
the abuses that prevailed from the improper
use of the register granted at Hong Kong to
vessels employed solely in trading with the mainland of
China-, , But there was in this bill an enactment of a
singtgateleind :
" And be it further enacted and ordained that it shall
be lawful for Chinese residents within this colony to apply
for and obtain colonial registers, provided the person or
persons applying as owners be registered lessees of Crown
lands within this colony, and that such owner or owners
tender as securities for the due performance by them
of all the requirements of this ordinance to other crown
lessees, and that suoh owners and such lessees be severally
reported by the Registrar-General to the satisfaction of the
Colonel Secretary to be each worth 2,000 dollars in this
colony ; and should such owner or owners bo member or
members of any shop or partnership, that the seal of such
shop or partnership be also affixed to the security to be
given by such owner."
Well, this bill was sent home for the assent of the Crown
—it was referred to the law advisers of the Board of
Trade—the Board of Trade having started an objection
which must occur to every one of your lordships from the
face of the ordinance itself—for there is no rule more
strictly adhered to (and it is absolutely necessary it
should be so still)—that no colonial legislature can pass
any law or act upon any law which is contrary and re-
pugnant to the law of England. But not only was this
ordinance contrary and repugnant to the law of Eng-
land, but in regard to the very point or, which the ques-
tion of the treaty was brought to bear, it repealed and
annulled the whole law of England with regard to the
registration of merchant vessels. The whole law of
England, which requires that to constitute an English
vessel she must be wholly owned by British subjects,
and navigated by an English crew, was swept aside at
once by that ordinance. And this seems to be the opi-
nion of the Board of Trade, for Mr. Booth, by direction
of the Secretary of State, in writing to the Governor of
Hong Kong, says :
" There is nothing in the act providing that the Chinese
residents to whom colonial registers may be granted should
be British subjects, nor are any local limits assigned with-
in which the register is to be in force ; and if it be intend-
ed that the grant of a colonial register shall confer on
the vessel the rights and privileges attaching to a British
vessel, it appears to my lords extremely questionable
whether this departure from the Merchant Shipping Act
(17 and 18 Vict., cap. 104), according to which British
ownership is an essential condition (and, in fact, the only
condition) of British registry, should be sanctioned by her
Majesty. It also appears to my lords deserving of consi-
deration whether, looking to the effect of registry on the
titles to ships, it is desirable to apply sea-going colonial
ships owned by British subjects a system of registry dif-
ferent from that which is provided for in the Imperial act.
I am, however, to point out to you that by section 547 of
the Imperial act, the le.,islative authority of any British
possession is empowered by any act or ordinance, con-
firmed by her Majesty in Council, to repeal wholly or in
part any provisions of that act relating to ships regis-
tered in such possession, but no such act or ordinance
is to take effect until such approval has beet proclaimed
in the possession, or until such time thereafter
as may be fixed by the act or ordinance for the pur-
pose. The ordinance in question does not appear to have
been passed in exercise of the power given by the clause
of the Imperial act just cited, and unless it should appear
to Lord J. Russell that there are any special circumstances
such as to justify the departure from the policy of the Im-
perial act as to ownership in the case of vessels registered
at Hong Kong, it appears to my lords that her Majesty's ap-
proval cannot properly be given to the present ordinance."
Now my lords, mark—l am not at this moment going
to discuss the substantial question of the merits of the
ordinance, but I am simply dealing with its legality.
Observe, no such ordinance could have been passed ex-
cept under the provisions of the act 17th and 18th Vic.,
cap. 104. But this ordinance was passed in March, 1855,
whereas the act 17 and 18 Vic. did not come into
operation until May, 1855 ; consequently and un-
doubtedly, then, the ordinance was not passed in pur-
suance of the powers given by that act, which I
apprehend cannot have such a retrospective operation
as to have reference to an ordinance passed in
the month of March previous. Except under the
sanction of this act there can be no foundation
for the ordinance, and no power on the part of the legis-
lature of Hong Kong to pass or her Majesty to confirm
such an ordinance. (Hear, hear.) But I waive for the
moment the question of the enabling statute of the Im-
perial Parliament being appealed to by a sort of retro-
spective operation to justify this proceeding, and I goon
to the more substantial part of the case. I should, how-
ever, state perhapsAttorney-General un to the
thoat an answer was given by there
g gong Colonial see -
tary. Ile says :
"The colony of Hong Yong
exceeding, at the present, tina' with e
60,000aChinese population
ten Chinese who can legallyi
vi
s be called
t
ri hardly contains
tilsihe
e t
he
Chinesesubjects, for
it has not been deemed a
here, and the recent settlementoonfathneracolony prevents
the posTsihbhaving become subjects by
g t theirprp
or tion of the respectable part of
birth.eiliryeatof o
this population have, however, Constituted themselves
and ofb yy years
permanent(a ten tenure toi
settlement
I :owe
ihi it c h
havean
bona tide British subjects, by becoming Crown tenants of
intention of perfecting themselves,
laieenlvai
sons of their descendants British
leaseholds
fi
d i tpsi incapable),
cferoa rp al bo
clearestnle'terms
secundum leg
es,
to the .
Crown tenants,
British soar,
taken up themgranting ofier registers as well as de facto. .
sters to such Chinese
rown, deemed it my I, subjects
Juttherefore, as law
as l4tbytise the
so far as in them lay made themselvescombecoming
e
nd whose discharge of obligation
could be guaranteed by lother Crown
tenants."
Now cannotKng has helphere fallen into an error, otherwise
he is attempting to v
thinking that the Attorney-General
of Hong indicate one illegal act by another,
for the purpose of granting British rights to aliens who
Io
have adopted the expedient of
means is this, that they
999 years, without requiring
to settlers for
Now remember
granting leases
fens
have never been naturalised. But I believe what he
them to take out letters 0
British subjects
ship is that she must be wholly
British Crown, or persons
that the one single condit
—natural-born subjects of the
naturalisation or denies-
ef tohwe rneegdisbtyratioa of a British
who have taken out letters of D
oath of allegiance.
tion, and subsequen I Ile, by the British
Such is the condition within which a nof
British o wner-
law. any one can claim the privileges _ .
But these
enaetrnents have been set aside in
ship and the right to carry the British flag•
of Hong
tly taken the . . ,
the 547th clause of
Kong, under the supposed sanction of
what may be
the fin •ly
,se pleat act,which points out not on
done, but the
what are ~ e manner in which m y iegillia.
the colony
the conditions under which the colonial

tore can pass this act ? The words of the ordinance must
be confirmed by order of her Majesty in council, those
orders must be sent oat with such confirmation to the
colony, and when they arrive, shall have no force until
they have been publicly proclaimed along with the order
in council. But what really has happened ? No order to
this day has been passed, but the Secretary of State has
taken on himself to signify that the act has been sent out
to the colony. I say that that act is so much wastepaper,
not having been confirmed by the Queen in council,. nor
proclaimed subsequently to its rrrival at Hong Bong.
But I g further. Recollect that all the,e questions beiiron
issue,the important points at namely—was this a British
vessel legally, and being a British vessel was there an
infraction of the treaty ? I say that she was not a Bri-
tish vessel legally, nor under under any sanction but that
of an order which was issued in the latter end of 1855,
but which did not come into operation until the February
of the following year. This act, waste paper as it is,
full of flaws as it is, arrived in the colony in 1856 as a
wholesale legalisation of a register professing to have
been granted in September, 1855. And here
indictment
against dis-
cussing the question as if it were a criminal
against the Chinese for having violated the treaty. I
do not know whether they have violated the treaty, but
certainly, unless the lorcha was a British vessel, there
was no violation of the treaty. But let us look to the
subject of this colonial ordinance, let us see whether it
is one that ought to be approved. Recollect that it may
be perfectly possible and legitimate to give the Chinese
residents in our colonies all privileges within your
limits, bat no man will contend that you have
a right to confer on them privileges derogatory to
the inalienable rights of the Chinese Government.
(" Hear, from Lord Grey) Chinese subjects are, day
by day, carrying on a coasting trade in the waters of
China, and what do you do ? You issue an order in Hong
Kong which says, in derogation of these Chinese rights,
that these Chinese shall be absolved from their natural
allegiance, may carry on any trade they please, and
laugh to scorn the Chinese officials who may attempt to
resist them, pleading the British flag and the colonial
register as empowering them to laugh at their own sove-
reign. (Hear, bear.) Would you venture to pass any
such act in reference to any state whose power was
nearly on a balance with your own ? (Hear, hear.) Try
it by our English notions, and say whether you dare
pass ordinances freeing foreigners from all liability to
the laws of their own country. (Hear, hear.) But un-
less you are prepared to say that this ordinance was good
in law and sound in justice, you cannot say that any vio-
lation of the treaty was committed, because you cannot
say the lorcha was a British vessel. It is true there was
a British subject sn board, a young man who
had been put on board as the nominal master, and who
literally knew so little about the vessel that he could
not tell her owner : he understood that she belonged to
Mr. Bloch, compradore at Hong Kong. (Hear.) Then
the colonial register did not come into effect for 6 months
after, and when it did, it had no validity, for it bad not
been issued under the proper conditions. I ask you,
whether in the case of such a British vessel lying in the
Chinese waters, and having on board two notorious
pirates, being visited in the absence of any British au-
thority, and these men taken out for trial---I ask you,
if in such case her Majesty's Government declared war
against China, whether it would not be considered as a
most despicable cause of war ? (Hear.) I ask you, my
lords, as men stimulated by a sense of honour, and as
British legislators, whether you will sanction an act
such as this on the part of her Majesty's advisers ? I
ask you whether you, er any of you, in your hearts
and consciences, would be satisfied to rest a declaration
of war on such a pretext ? but still more, whether you
would be satisfied to make war without a declaration on
such a pretext 1 But I have not done with this part of
the case yet. Suppose that this British vessel was lying
in the waters of Canton, had she the British flag flying?
Now as to whether the flag was flying or not, there is
considerable discrepancy in the evidence. One master of
a vessel in the aeighbourhood declares that he saw the
flag hauled down, and others testify to the same fact ;
but on the other hand the Chinese who boarded the ves-
sel all aver that they saw no flag hauled down, nor do '
they believe that there was any lag flying, and not sees
ing any English flag they did not consider that they
committed any violation of the treaty. So much for the
matter of fact, but there is a reference made by the im-
perial commander, to the effect that the flag must not
have been flying, because, he says, it is notorious that
the British merchant ships do not hoist their flags until
they are going away, thus substantiating a declaration
to which no answer has as yet been made. I believe
it 18 now notorious at Canton that the flag was not
flying ; but if flying, the next question is, was it legally
flying, bad the master a right to hoist it, or did he only
do it when he came near the port, in order to deceive the
officials ? I omitted, in speaking of the ordinance, to
notice the great facility it gave to smuggling. I believe
there was always a good deal of smuggling, but that the
ordinance increased it greatly. The colonial treasurer
writing in Oct., 1855, says :
"The act has been extremely beneficial to the respect-
able Chinese settled here, since it has already increased the
coasting trade in British goods and opium."
The ordinance, it appears, has been extremely benefi-
cial in enabling British subjects to trade in opium.
(Bear, bear.) Further, with respect to an ordinance of
this kind, entirely altering the stipulations of the treaty,
your lordships will be surprised to hear that it never
was communicated to Chinese Government. I see my
noble friend looking at the book. I know it was com-
municated subsequently, but not when the ordinance
was issued. What did you do ? When two lorchas were
seized and confiscated for smuggling the consul applied to
Yeh, and then for the first time this ordinance canoe into
notice. But these licences to carry the British flag were,
under the act, renewable from time to time, the original
register being deposited, and this must be done before
the expiration of each year, and if not so deposited the

licence to become null and void. The terms oe the act on
that subject are clear and decisive, providing that any
deviation from the regulations shall incur the forfeiture
of ship and cargo. Further, it says that the renewal
must be effected four weeks before the end of each year.
Now, under this ordinance there is no penalty, but it is
clear that if at the end of the year there is no renewal, it
is in force for one year and no longer. Now if there be
any doubt on this matter, I appeal to Sir J. Bowring.
He says :
" I have your despatches dated 9th and 10th, with their
inclosures, on the subject of the arrest of sundry Chinamen
on board a vessel called the Arrow, bearing the British
flag, and commanded by a subject of her Majesty. The
question presents two inquiries—let, the rights of the ves-
sel in question ; and 2d, the conduct of the Chinese autho-
rities. It appears on examination that the Arrow had no
right to hoist the British flag ; the licence to do so expired
on the 27th Sept., from which period she has not been en-
titled to protection. You will seed back the register to be
delivered to the Colonial-office."
Here was the statement of Sir J. Bowring, that after the
27th Sept. no protection could legally be granted. I
should like to know whether any honest, straightfor-
ward man would, after such a declaration, justify his de-
mands on the plea that the Chinese were ignorant that
the licence had expired. I say that such a plea could
not be sustained, and yet for this the country is involved
in a disastrous war. ‘Vhat is the defence ? Sir J. Bow-
ring says that the licence had expired, but that the Chi-
nese did not know it. Therefore, because you have no
claim, and your adversary does not know it, you think
yourself justified in using threats and coercion. I must
now go to adifferent part of the case—l mean the claim for
the free admission of British subjects into the City of
Canton. With respect to this point, your lordships will
find at page 185 of the blue book the earliest statement
on the subject. Ido not think it quite clear that the
original treaty intended to confer the right to the extent
to which it was subsequently exercised, but that it
merely meant to confer on British subjects and British
merchants the liberty of carrying on their trade and pur-
suing their business within the walls of Canton. I doubt
whether it was intended that the British should have per-
mission to live within the walk. I must now trouble
your lordships by reading some documents. In 1848 Mr.
Bonham was our plenipotentiary, and as the time ap-
proached when the treaty should come into operation he
wrote for instructions to Lord Palmerston, then Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, asking whether he should press
for the admission of British subjects against the mani-
fest disinclination and apprehension of the Chinese. He
says—
"lf the Government is disposed to insist on admission
to the city of Canton it will be necessary to send me full
instructions, and the means of carrying them into effect."
He adds—
" Without a military demonstration I am satisfied that
we cannot attempt an entrance."
Mr. Dontiam proceeds to Ray that the ..luetano. of 4b
Chinese authorities arose from their dread of the fanati-
cism of the people, whom they feared they had not suffi-
cient power to keep in order. In answer to that despatch
Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Bonham, Oct. 7, 1848, a
despatch, which does great credit to the good sense of
the noble lord. Ile says :

"Foreign Office, Oct. 7, 1848.
" Sir,—l have received your despatch of the 20th July,
inclosing the Chinese commissioner's answer to your letter
of the 21st Juno, inclosed in your previous despatch of that
date. The question which you have brought under the con-
sideration of her Majesty's Government, as arising out of
the evident disinclination of the Chinese commissioner to
give effect to the arrangement by which British subjects were
to be allowed free access to the city of Cantonin April next
is one on which it is difficult for me to give you positive in-
structions. On one hand,
evil consequences may flow from
allowing the Chinese to refuse or evade the performance of
contracted engagements; on the other hand, it is inexpe-
dient to resort to force to compel them to execute promises
from the performance of which no real benefit to British
interests would accrue. It has always appeared to me to
be doubtful whether the right of entering the city of Can-
ton would be productive of any material advantage to Bri-
tish residents; while it has been plain that the unrestricted
entrance of British residents into that city might lead to
disputes and collisions between British subjects and Chi-
nese, the consequences of which might be serious. I now
understand from yourdespatch that the principal advantage
which would result from free access to the city would be,
that on special occasions tho superintendent or the consul
would be able to go to the Chinese authorities, and to com-
municate personally with them. This, undoubtedly, might
often be useful, and such personal intercourse might fre-
quently lead to an easier settlement of disputes, and to the
maintenance of a good understanding. But this advantage
might be gained without a general and indiscriminate ac-
cess for all British subjects to the city, because it might be
arranged that whenever the superintendent or consul should
wish to communicate with the Chinese Governor, they
should send word to him, and that then he should send an
escort to attend them through the city, and to convey them
back again ; and to this the objection would not apply
which the Commissioner urges against the general admis-
sion of British subjects to the city. I should wish, however,
to know what practical advantage in regard to commerce
the British residents at Canton now sustain by not being
allowed to enter the city, and what practical advantages,
beyond those of pleasure and amusement, British subjects
would derive from the power of entering the city when
they chose. There seems reason to fear that at first the
appearance of foreigners without escort or protection in the '
to assault them ; and that the police of
sthtesreeoetttosowoinnf
Bratuhilegthcirt:o,tm4i might
atei:nepo: the
the lower
00t classesor alto
f Chi-
-1 11