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

- t ment of their town. He (Sir F. Thesiget) was himself
r witness of that dreadful conflagration ; the loss of life
was immense ; and in the midst of all that distress there
I , came forth a voice from amongst the Danes, which,-
after describing the horrors of the carnage—the bodies
floating on the water, the mother and child struck down
together—burst out into this pathetic apostrophe,
" Ob, Britain, queen of nations, how can your sons be
guilty of such crimes ? " (Cheers.) He trusted they
were not now about to justify similar acts. (Hear,
I hear.) He could not truss himself with the utterance
of the sorrow, shame, and indignation which burnt
within him on the perusal of these papers, which he
feared would remain a lasting monument to the bad faith
of England ; nor could be now hope for one minute's
inward peace did be not seize the opportunity afforded
by the resolution of the hon. member for the West Rid-
ing to express his horror of these proceedings. (Hear.)
Sir W. F. WILLIAMS said that after the volumi-
nous arguments he had beard he should have been con.
tented to give a silent vote on this question, but that he
felt he had a duty to perform to his country and himself
—to his country because he was going to make explana-
tions-which he was sure both sides of the house would
receive with pleasure, and to himself because for 26 years
he had served his country in that portion of the east that
lay between the Bosphorus and the waters of China;
Before the late war he had seen the Chinese at our colo-
nies of Malacca, Singapore, and Penang, where they
enriched themselves rapidly, and received the greatest
possible kindness and protection from the English. But
during all that time they were at home practising all
those insults and injuries that led to the war that en-
sued and to treaties conferring great powers on us both
as to their country and shipping. Lord Lyndhurst had
said in another place that our treaties with these eastern
nations placed them in an unfair and degraded position
but if it were so, then those nations were to blame them.
selves, as they had separated themselves from the great
family of mankind. Having made some observations on
the bad faith of the Turks and Persian; of whose morality
he said he had had 16 years' experience, the gallant gene-
ral returned to the speech of the hon. member for the
West Riding, and thanked that hon. member for the hand-
some manner in which he had spoken of the officers of the.
army and navy. He trusted that when the estimates came
under discussion, the hon. member would not be one of
those who by curtailing our military institutions would
seek to make us better adapted for another war. (Cheers
and laughter.) With respect to the point immediately be-
' fore the house, he believed that the insult complained of
bad been premedidated on the part of the Chinese, and
that therefore as Englishmen they were bound to resent
it. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, he believed that any cen-
sure by the house of the proceedings of Government
would have the worst effect in China, and therefore he
felt bound to offer a negative to the resolutions of the
hon. member for the West Riding.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT agreed with much that
had fallen from the friends of Ministers. He agreed with
Sir J. Bowriog that the lorcha had no right to the Bri-
tish flag ; he agreed with Mr. Consul Parkes that not
more than enough reparation was demanded ; he agreed
with Mr. Booth that the ordinance was illegal ; he agreed
with the Attorney-General that the question of the
treaty was wh liy immaterial to the case. It was said
that the Cantonese were a blackguard population. Well,
but every blackguard town was not to be bombarded.
And remember that of these blackguards the crew of the
lorcha itself was composed. Every one of these men
might, if the Ministerial argument were correct, have
gone into any part of Europe sh.,uting "Civis Romanns
sum." He defended Mr. Cobden and Sir J. Graham from
the attacks made upon them by Sir G. Grey, and con.
tended, in opposition to the Horne Secretary, that Sir
Seymour did not exercise his own judgment in the
attack, but proceeded throughout in obedience to orders.
He admitted it was a genero. a thing for the Government
to defend its absent servants, even though they might
commit occasional mistakes. But was there to be no
limit to this support ? He knew there were men inca-
pable of any but the highest rtl pious motives who held
a different opinion from him, but he could not stifle his
earnest conviction that these proceedings cast a deep
stain upon the reputation of England for justice, reli-
gion, and mercy.
Sergt. SHEE, in addressing himself to the legal part
of the question, said that if the motion of the hon. mem-
ber for the West Riding were affirmed they would in
effect be abrogating the treaty of 1843. A ship owned by
Chinese, built by Chinese, manned by Chinese in the
island of Hong Kong, became, under the tretcy, a
British-vessel. It was clear that the Arrow answered a'l
the descriptions provided for in the treaty. The articles
13, 14, and 16 of the supplemental treaty of 1843 were
perfectly clear. It was said these lorchas were not British
ships because they were not owned by a natural born
British subject. The Attorney-General had taken a coin-
mon-place view of the treaty, and if they construed the
words of the treaty meaning "British ships," that it
must be owned by a British-born subject only, then, t)
all intents and purposes they would repeal the treaty.
That was a serious consideration for those who intended
to support the resolution. The residents of Hong
Kong were, according to the existing law, British sub-
jects. The nationality of the ship depended upon the
residence of the owner. That was clearly the law.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALlin and Mr. J. PHILLIMORE rose
together, and the former moved the adjournment of the
debate. There were several exclamations from different
parts of the house in favour of the continuance of the
discussion, but ultimately the adjournment of the debate
until to-morrow (this day) was assented to.
Lord PA.LNIERSTON—There are some notices stand-
ing for to-morrow, but I hope that those gentlemen who
have given these notices will feel that it is of importance
that this debate should be brought to a close to-morrow,
and that they will permit the debate to come on.
Mr. DISRAELI—I may say, for myself, tbat as the
division has not yet taken place, and as the debate has
assumed its present character, I am, of course, unwilling
to attempt to force a division. I cannot, however, help
remembering that in that other place which has been so
frequently, and, as I think, so irregularly alluded to in
our debates, when a motion for the adjournment of the
debate was made on the first night a leading Minister of
the Crown objected to the adjournment. I bad theref, T 3
thought that as the question had been discussed in this
house and was adjourned over Friday, we might have
come to a conclusion te-night. I, however, now collect
that there is a very general feeling that the debate should
be again adjourned—(hear)—but I do hope that there
will be an understanding among us on both sides that
the division will be taken to-morrow. (Hear.)
Colonel LINDSAY, who had a notice on the paper
for to-morrow, expressed his readiness to allow the de-
bate to have precedence.

COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY (1856) ACT

AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
EXTRA-PAROCHIAL PLACES BILL.

After a ,-port conversation, in the course of which Mr.
BouvEalE explained that the object of this bill was to
compel extra-parochial places to maintain their poor, it
was read a second time.