The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-07 00:00:00

John Baskyfield, marine, Calcutta, slug wound, left hip,
severely.
Richard lore, marine, Calcutta, contused wound, left
shoulder, from a spent ball, slightly.
George Atkins, marine, Calcutta, slug wound, left arm
and left breast, severely.
William Straw, marine, Calcutta, slug wound, left
breast, severely.
Simon Jessop, marine, Calcutta, slug wound, right
cheek, slightly.
James Nicolson, marine, Winchester, slug wound, left
leg and both gluteal regions, dangerously.
Patrick Byrnes, marine, Winchester, contused wound of
sternum from a spent ball, slightly.
James Love, nartrine, Comes, penetrating slug wound of
abdomen, mortally (since dead).
Reuben Bargery, fifer, R.M., Comes, wound of face,
slightly.
Roland Bradstock, marine, Encounter, contused wound,
right shoulder, from a s pent ball, slightly.
14th November—All the wounded are doing well.
M. SEYNIOUR,
Rear-Admiral and Commander-in-Chief.

Encounter, at Canton, Oct. 30, 1856.
Sir,—Referring to my letter of the 29th, I have the
honour to inform your Excellency that a practicable breach
having been made yesterday, about 2 p.m., in the new city
wall, from the guns in the Dutch Folly, a strong detach.
ment of seamen and Royal Marines took possession of the
city wall, destroyed, by blowing up, one of the gates,
entered the city, and, having visited and inspected the
house and premises of the governor, the forces were re-
embarked at sunset, and retired to their respective guar.
tors.

Little opposition was offered by the Chinese troops be-
yond a scattered fire from the streets and houses, from
which we sustained a loss of two marines killed and twelve*
wounde i.

The High Commissioner having made no concession, I
have re-opened fire this morning, with a view to maintain
the breach, and preserve t be facilities it offers for re-enter-
ing the city if necessary.—l have, sac.,
(Signed) M. SEYMOUR.
His Hxcelleney Sir John Bowring, LL.D., her
Majesty's Plenipotentiary, Hong Long.

Superintendency of Trade, Hong Yong, Oct. 31, 1856.
Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge your Excellen-
cy's despatch of yesterday, advising me that a breach was
made in the new city wall, on the 29th, through which our
brave fellows entered the city, and visited the public
offices of the Governor-General, and that (having accom-
plished this) they returned to their quarters, and your
Excellency announces that the breach will be maintained,
with a view to further proceedings.
I am indeed sorry to find that all these demonstrations
do not move 'the [lmperial Commissioner to enter upon
becoming negotiations.—l have, (Lc.,
(Signed) JOHN BOWEING.
His Excellency Sir Michael Seymour, K.C.8.,
Naval Commander-in-Chief, Canton.

British Consulate, Canton, Oct. 30, 1856.
Sir,—When the Prefect of Luy-chow-foo was sent yes-
terday to the British Consulate by your Excellency, for
the purpose of ascertaining what demands I had to make,
I instructed the British Consul to state to him for the in-
formation of your Excellency, that convinced as I am
that, were the right of access to the authorities within the
city, that has been invariably conceded at the other ports,
similarly in force at Canton, no such contingency could
arise as the present, in which the impossibility of other-
wise effecting any satisfactory arrangement had rendered
necessary the proceedings of the last few days ; what I
had now to insist upon was simply this, that the foreign
representatives should have here the same access to the
authorities as at the other ports.
Your Excellency sent no reply to my message, and ac-
cerding to the intention of which I had given notice to
your deputy, I breached the wall of the city, and thus
obtained access to your Excellency's official residence,
whitah I visited yesterday afternoon. This object accom-
plished, I withdrew nay troops.
I may observe that it has been wholly with a view to
the preservation of life that my operations have been
hitherto so deliberately conducted. Even yesterday, when
entering the city, no blood was shed, save where my men
were assailed, and the property of the people was, in
every case, respected. The fires which have broken out
during the last two days were not either designedly
caused by us; they were but a lamentable consequence of
the measures to which your Excellency's conduct has com-
pelled me, reluctantly, to resort.
I have now one remark to make, to which I request
your Excellency's particular attention. The lives and
property of the entire population are at my mercy, and
coal] be destroyed by me at any moment that any event
might impose upon me so sad a necessity. The preven-
tion of any such necessity is entirely in the hands of your
Excellency.
I have been constrained to move onward, proceeding
from one step to a farther, by the pertinacity and dis-
courtesy
j with which your Excellency has persisted in evad-
ing the just and simple claims advanced by us in the first
instance.

It is now for your Excellency, by immediate consulta-
tion with me, to terminate a condition of things of which
the present evil isnot slight, but which, if not amended,
can scarcely fail to be productive of the most serious calm-
mities.—l have, etc., (Signed) M. SETMOUR.
His Excellency Yeh, Imperial High Commissioner, tiro.

Yeh, Imperial Commissioner, Governor-General of the Two
Bwang Provinces, &c., makes communication.
I have this day received your Excellency's letter of the
30th October, and have acquainted myself with its con-
tents.
The relations between your Excellency's country and the
Chinese, ever since the commencement of commercial in-
tercourse between them, have been none other than those
of politeness ; and when on the Bth instant twelve prisoners
were seized on board the lorcha, having ascertained from
the officer deputed to conduct the investigation, that nine
of their number were innocent, I directed an officer, on
' the 10th instant, to put them on board their vessel again.
Mr. Consul Parkes refused to receive them.
Early on the morning of the 22d ultimo, I wrote to
Mr. Consul Parkes, and at the same time forwarded to him
twelve men, namely Leang-Mingtae, and Leang-keen-foo,
convicted on the inquiry I had instituted, and the witness
Woo Ajin, together with thenine men previously tendered.
But Mr. Consul Parkes would neither receive the twelve
prisoners nor my letter.
The lorcha, it appears, was built by Loo-a-Ching, a Chi-
nese. She was not a foreign vessel at all, and her British
flag had been purchased through the merchant Block, as
was clearly established by the admission of the prisoner
Woo-Ajin, when under examination.
It was not known at the time that my executive went
to seize persons on board her that the lorcha was a foreign
vessel. She was anchored in the neighbourhood of the
Dutch Folly. She was built by the Chinese Loo-a-Ching.
As to the question of the flag, it has been the invariable
rule with lorchas of your Excellency's nation to haul down
their ensign when they drop anchor, and to hoist it again
when they get under weigh.
When this lorcha was boarded, in order that the priso-
ners might be seized, it has been satisfactorily proved that
no flag was lying. How, then, could a flag have been
hauled down ? Yet Consul Parkes, in one despatch after
another, pretends that satisfaction is required for this in-
sult offered to the flag.
There has been, in truth, no breach of treaty committed ;
and, after so many years of peaceful understanding between
our two nations, why, without cause, a military operation
should be undertaken, I am utterly unable to explain.
In reference to the admission into the city, I must observe
that in April 1849, his Excellency Plenipotentiary Bonham
issued a public notice, at the factories here, to the effect
that he thereby prohibited foreigners from entering the city.
The notice was inserted in the newspapers of the time,
and will, I presume, have been read by your Excellency ;
add to this that the exclusion of foreigners from the city
is by the unanimous vote of the whole population of
Kwang4ang.
It may be supposed how little to their liking has been
this storming of the f)rts and this destruction of their
dwellings; and apprehensive, as I am, that evil may hence
befall the officials and citizens of your Exsellency's nation,
I can suggest nothing better than a continued adherence
to the policy of the Plenipotentiary Bonham, as the correct
course to be pursued.
As to the consultation (proposed by your Excellency), I
have already some days ago deputed Tcheang, Prefect of
Lny-chow-fow.
I accordingly reply, availing myself of the occasion to
wish your Excellency prosperity, &c.
A necessary communication, addressed to his Excellency
Sir Michael Seymour, Naval Commander-in-Chief, &c.
Hien-fung, 6th year, 10th moon, 3d day, 31st Oct., 1856.
Tre.nsl,ted by
(Signed) THOMAS WADE, Chinese Secretary.
Trite copy.
(Signed) CHAS. A. WINCHESTER, Vice-Consul.

British Consulate, Nov. 1, 1856.
Sir,—l am in receipt of your Excellency's reply of the
31st ult.

I must positively decline any further argument on the
merits of the case of the lorcha Arrow. lam perfectly
satisfied of the facts as represented to your Excellency by
Mr. Consul Parkes, and that the just demands of the Con-
sul were not acceded to by your Excellency. The men who
had been publicly seised on board the Arrow were not pub-
licly restored to their vessel, as he had requested, nor was
the required apology made for the violation of his juris-
diction by your executive.
The whole course and issue of the lengthy correspondence
arising out of a matter which might in the first instance
have been easily adjusted have determined me, as I have
already told you, to insist on behalf of the foreign repre-
sentatives of the same right of access to the authorities
within Canton as has been invariably conceded at the
other ports ; the exercise of this right being, in my belief,
our sole
security against recurrence of misunderstandings
like the present, involving proceedings so distasteful to my-
self and so disastrous to you.
Tour Excellency's reply refers me to the notification of
the British Plenipotentiary Bonham in 1849, prohibiting
foreigners from entering Canton.
Now I must remind you that, although we have re-
ceived serious matter of complaint against the Chinese
Government, for breach of the promise given in 1847, to
admit foreigners into Canton at the end of the two years,
my demand now made is in no way connected with the
former negotiations on the same subject, neither am I de-
manding the admission (f any but the foreign officials,
and this only for the simple and sufficient reason above
assigned.
On my proposal to treat personally with your Excel-
lency, you do me the honour to remark that you sent a
prefect some days ago. lam compelled, therefore, to re-
gard your Excellency's whole letter as unsatisfactory in
the extreme, and have only to add, that unless I imme-
diately receive an explicit assurance of your assent to
what I have proposed,
operations. I shall at once resume offensive

The deliberateness with which I have so far proceeded,
should have convinced you of my reluctance to visit the
shortcomings of their authorities upon the inhabitants of
Canton. The responsibility of what may now befall them
rests on your Excellency. Should you persist in your
Present' line of Policy, you leave me but one course to
pursue, and you will learn, when too it is late, that we
have power to execute what we undertake.—Accept. &c.,
(Signed) hl. SEYMOUR.
His Ezeellency Yeb, Imperial High Commissioner, &C.

Yeh, Imperial Commissioner, Governor-General at the Two
Kwang Provinces, dm., makes a communication in reply.
I am in receipt of your Excellency's letter of the 2d inst.,
and have acquainted myself with its contents.
In the case of the lord's, you say that, on the representa-
tion of Consul Parkes, I should have caused the men publicly
seized on board that vessel to have been publicly returned
to her, and that it was incumbent on me to admit that their
capture by my executive was a mistake. No foreign flag was
seen by my executive at the time of the capture, and as in
addition to this it was ascertained on the examination of the

* One since dead.

prisoners by the officer deputed to conduct it, Chat the loreha
was iu no respect a foreign vessel, I maintain that there was
no mistake committed. In the next place the twelve men
were handed back to the Consul when the examination was
over, but he declined to receive them ; there was not then
either any refusal to return the men to their vessel.

As to what is said in the letter un ler acknowledgment re-
specting that rule of intercourse between foreign officials and
the native authorities that has always obtained at the other
ports, it has been found that the people of Kwang-tung are
extremely fierce and ♦iolent, differing in nature from people
of other provinces.

In 1848 there was a long controversial correspondence on
this subject between my predecessor Leu and the British
Plenipotentiary, Mr. Bonham ; and Mr. Bonham being satis-
fied that an interview within the city war utterly out of the
question, addressed a letter to Leu on the April, 1849, in
which he said—" At the present time I can have no more* (or
still less can I have) discussion with your Excellency on this
subject." He further issued a notice from the factories to the
effect that no foreigner was to enter the city, which was in-
serted is the papers, and he communicated this to the Bri-
tish Goverursent.t There was not a Chinese or foreigner of
any nation who did not know that the question was never to
be discussed again ; and is shown by the records. His Ma-
jesty the Emperor was informed in a memorial, drawn up by
myself, the then governor of the province, together with the
late Commissioner Leu, that Mr. Bonham had stated in his
correspondence that this question could not be discussed,
and had issued a notice prohibiting foreigners from entering
the city.

Assuming that your Excellency has long been aware of
this, I am utterly unable to explain what is meant in the
letter under acknowledgment by the statement that the pre-
sent demand is in no way connected with the negotiations of
former years, and it is only for the admission of foreign offi-
cials into the city.
As to former negotiations, Mr. Bonham stated in corre-
spondence, that discussion of this question could not be re
newed, and issued a prohibitory notice on the subject.
Your Excellency's proposition having reference to the very
same question (as that mooted by Mr. Bonham), how can it
be said to have no connection with it I And when Mr. Bon.
ham has said that this question could be no more discussed by
him, it is to be inferred that it can still less be discussed by
your Excellency.

To conclude, our two countries have been many years on
friendly terms. Without cause you have in one day come
upon us with hostilities, the result of which has been intoler-
able misery to the people. Let your Excellency ponder well
what is no vain fiction of mine, that hundreds and thousands
•f them have been for days past clamorously tendering their
services, ardent and united for the defence of the city.
I accordingly reply, availing myself of the occasion to wish
your Excellency prosperity, &c.
A necessary communication addressed to his Excellency Sir
Michael Seymour, Naval Commander-in-Chief.
Aien•fung, 6th year, 10th month, 6th day (3d November,
1856.) Translated by
(Signed) Tuome.s Wens, Chinese Secretary.

British Consulate, Canton, Nov. 4, 11i56.
Sir,—l am in receipt of your Excellency's letter of yester-
day, referring me to the correspondence between your Excel-
lency's predecessor and Mr. Bonham, our late plenipoten.
tisry. The perusal of all that is on record will show you that
although, when the Chinese Government refused in 1849 to
fulfil the promise given in 1847, the right of entry into Can-
ton was for the moment waived, it was distinctly informed
at the time and since, that our claim was in no respect aban-
doned. My demand, however, as I have already told you, is
entirely distinct from any former proposition on the subject.
It is useless to restate my reasons for insisting upon it, and I
have only to add until it is acceded to I have no alternative
but to persist in the course you have compelled me to adopt.
--I have, &c.,

(Signed) M. SEYMOUR.
His Excellency Yeh, Imperial High Commissioner, &c.

Encounter, at Canton, Nov. 3, 1856.
Sir,—Since My letter of proceedings of the 30th ult., I
have confined my operations to maintaining the breach in the
city wall, which the Chinese have continually evinced a dis-
position to close; also to clearing away the Chinese buildings
in the rear of the factory.
On the 30th ult. and Ist inst. I wrote the two letters to the
High Commissioner of which your Excellency has received
copies from Mr. Consul Parkes, as well as a copy of the High
Commissioner's reply to the first. The result has been my
resuming offensive operations this day against the govern-
ment buildings in the city, from the Encounter, Sampson,
and the Dutch Folly,which, as far as can be at present ascer-
tained, will be continued to-morrow.—l have, &e.,
(Signed) M. SEYMOUR.
His Excellency Sir John Bowling, LL.D., her
Majesty's Plenipotentiary, Hong Kong.

Superintendency of Trade, Hong Kong, Nov. 4, 1856.
Sir,—l have to acknowledge your Excellency's despatch of
yesterday, announcing the resumption of offensive operations.
I think, under present circumstances, it is desirable to
convey to your Excellency copy of a communication drafted
at the Foreign-office, and sent by Sir George Bonham, under
Lord Palmerston's instructions, to the Imperial Commissioner
on the 21st August, 1849.

In a communication dated 6th July, made to the India and
China Association by order of Lord Palmerston, it is stated
" her Majesty's Government have no intention to renounce
the right of entering the city of Canton."—l have. &c.,
(Signed) Joux BOWRIN6.
His Excellency Sir Michael Seymour, K.C.8.,
Naval Commander-in-Chief, Canton.

Victiria, Hong Kong, Aug. 21, 1849.
The undersigned, &c., has been instructed by her Majesty's
Government to make to the High Commissioner the following
communication :

The British Government has learnt with surprise and dis-
pleasure that the Government of China has declined to fulfil
the engagements of the treaties by which British subjects
were to be admittad free access to the city of Canton.
In the treaty of Nankin. of the 29th August, 1842, it was
stated that " his Majesty the Emperor of China agrees that
British subjects, with their families and establishments, shall
be allowed to reside for the purpose of carrying on their mer-
cantile pursuits, without molestation or restraint, at the
cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Foochow-foo, Ningpo, and
Shanghae."

In the supplementarytreaty of Hoomun-Chae •f the Bth Oe
tober, 1843, it was again recorded that " The treaty of per-
petual peace and friendship provides for British subjects and
their families residing at the cities and towns of Canton, Foo-
chow, Amoy, Ningpo, and Shanghae, without molestation
and restraint."

In the further treaty, signed at Bocca Tigris on the 4th of
April, 1846, it was said,--" Hi.s Majesty the Emperor of
China having on his own part distinctly stated that when in
the course of time mutual tranquillity shall have been in-
sured, it will be safe and right to admit foreigners into the
city of Canton ; and the local authorities being for the pre-
sent unable to coerce the people of that city, the plenipoten-
tiaries on either side mutually agree that the execution of the
above measure shall be postponed to a more favourable period ;
but the claim of right is by no means yielded or abandoned
on the part of her Britannic Majesty."
And, finally, in the article agreed upoi at Canton, on the
6th April, 1847, it was stated, as recorded in Keying's note
of that day to the British plenipotentiary, " The intention of
returning my visit to the city is excellent, but the time for it
ought still somewhat to be delayed.
" It is therefore now agreed that two years from this day's
date British officers and people shall have free entrance into
the city."

These engagements, thus solemnly recorded, the Chinese
government has now declined to fulfil. But the faithful per-
formance of treaty engagements by sovereigns is the security
for peace between nations. The Queen of England has ful-
filled her treaty en;agements to the Emperor of China. The
Emperor of China has not fulfilled his treaty engagements to
the Queen of England. Why has the Emperor broken his
word ? Is it because he is unwilling to keep his engage-
thents, or because he is unable to do so? If he is unwilling
to keep his engagements, how can the British government
trust to the Emperor's word, and how can there be lasting
peace between the twe governments ? If the Emperor is
unable to keep his promise, because' his word and his orders
are not respected by his subjects, how could he expect that
foreign governments should show him more respect than his
own subjects are willing to show him ? And will not foreign
governments be obliged to inflict on the Chinese people, in
order to repress their violence, those punishments which the
Emperor is too weak to be able to award ?

But is this the way to secure tranquillity to the Chinese
people 1

Let the Chinese Government well consider these things;
and whatever may happen in future between the two coun-
tries that may be disagree tble to China, let the Chinese Go-
vernment remember that the fault thereof will be upon them.
Lot the High Commissioner send this communication to
the Imperial Government of Pekin.
The undersigned, 40.,
(Signed) S. G. BONHAM.

A true copy.

(Signed) GEO. S. MORRISON.

Yeh, Imperial Commissioner, Governor-General of the Two
Kwang Provinces, &e., makes a communication in reply.
On the 4th inst., I received your Excellency's communica-
tion of the 3d, and have acquainted myself with its contents.
As to the question of admission into the city your Excel-
lency is already aware that, a long correspondence having
passed on the subject, between my predecessor Leu, and the
British Plenipotentiary, Mr. Boaham, it was with the full
conviction that the temper of the Canton people is fierce and
violent, and, in fact, different from the people of the other
ports, that Mr. Bonham writes the words, " henceforth the
matter shall be no more discussed," and issued a notice, pro-
hibiting, foreigners from entering the city, which was in-
serted in the newspapers—the above being truths and not in
any way false averments of mine (when therefore) the letter
under acknowledgment states that "although when the pro-
mise given in 1847 was broken in 1849, the claim of the Bri-
tish Government was, for the moment, waived" (I must ob-
serve) this was all owing to the fact that the Kwang-tung
people were unanimously opposed to (your admission). The
Kwang-tung people of the present day are the Kwang-tun peo-
ple of 1849. If admission into the city had been practicable
in 1849, there would have been no occasion for the prohibit-
ing notice of Wr. Bohnam. Your Excellency's proposition
being identical with his will not bear discussion. I would
have you ask yourself, if the question of admission to which
the Kwang-tung people were opposed before be, in all likeli-
hood, less easy new, when they have been subjected to grie-
vous affliction than it was in 1849.
As to the correspondence of which your Excellency's letter
says, ‘, A perusal of all that is on record will show," dic.,
there is no part of it with which I am not conversant, and I
am regarding as final the latest decision arrived at therein.
In the administration of all natters in China the rule ad-
hered to is that which heaven (or nature) shows is the right
one to pursue ; the chief consideration is the people.
It is said in the Book of History, " Heaven sees as my peo.
pie see, Heaven hears as my people hear ;" that is to say,
that what the people are averse to Heaven (the Deity) is
averse to.
Is not this an additional reason why I should ho unable to
constrain (the people) ? I must add, that as it is the habit of
your Excellency's nation to adore the spirits of heaven, ib
behoves you, in my opinion, so much the more to conform in
your actions to the principle given us by heaven 4
Let your Excellency maturely consider this
I accordingly reply to you, availing myself of the opportu-
nity to wish your Excellency prosperity, die., &c.
A necessary communication addressed to his Excellency Sir
Michael Seymour, Naval Commander-in-Chicf.
Hien-fung, 6th year, 10th moon, Bth day (sth November,
1856.) Translated by
(Signed) Thomas WADE, Chines() Secretary.

British Consulate, Canton, Nov. 6,185 g.
Sir' —I am in receipt of another letter from your Excellency,
dated yesterday. I have nothing to add to what I have before
written, except that I observe with much regret that no
_____

* The Chinese will translate either way.
t The manner in which this is put is uncourteous, especi-
ally when contrasted with the form of mentioning a reference
to the Chinese Government a little further on.
-41: Heaven written in the translation with a capital may be
taken as a synonyme for the Deity ; without it, for nature.