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

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

(Hear, hear.) How could such a meaning as this be given '
to the instructions sent to a dependency four months' sai
from this country ! But it was said, what a shocking thin,:
to give a British consul in Hong Kong the power of in-
volving England in a war with China. He (Hr. L.) con-
tended that they were not at war with China, and he hoped
that they would never be at war with China. 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 is employed.
In a station where England may be said to be close at hand
to superintend and direct the course of operations under a
commander's control, the case may be very different. But
in respect to distant parts of the world, this power cannot
be disputed." Now, he (Hr. L.) thought that that settled
the question. Sir J. Bowring possessed that right, and the
cast; was one which fully: justified him in 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 Washington 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 had been imputed to them of adding China
to the British empire. This unfortunate dispute had arisen
not with the Emperor of China, but with the local govern
ment 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 svi it'd come when that great portion of the human
race which inhabited the empire would be brought into
closer communication with the more civilised portion of
the world ; and that the tyrannical and cruel 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 saidl 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 ohould be
able to show how groundless was the position assumed
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 bones 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 aloption 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 stage of its history—being
built, owned, manned, fought for aad litigated for by Chi-
nese, and with nothing English about itexcept theaeciden.
tal presence of a lad under ago, 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 characterised belongto 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 ; and 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 Perliament 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 to 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
Chinese were not bound to allow this country a right by
subsequent 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 no means 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 1851 that even au
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 according 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 nat%-
ralise Austrian subjects, and without the consent of the
Emperor of Austria make that naturalisation good as
against his Imperial Majesty's rights over his own subjects?
This custom of naturalisation was founded upon civilisation
and based upon principles of reason. Would any indepen •
dent sovereign Buffer 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 not 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 nggt have
been so according to the law of nations ; and, he therefore
denied that she could have been made English by doing
what vessels that were English ware required to do. If at
the time of signing the treaty the British Government iu-
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 in this monstrous privilege of
seling 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 arrangement ? Why, " that legal trading
might be protected, and illegal trading prevented." (Hear,
hear.) But whet hid 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 maintains'. that this
lorcha Arrow, belonging to Chinese subjects, and employed
in the Chinese waters, could not at the date of the treaty
have been a British vessel. (Hear, hear) If since the date
of tee 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 had agreed to it, which it was clear they had not.
(Hear.) This was 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; end, if that were
so, they could not avail themselves of the 9th art., which
said that, if any Chinese malefactor were on boar 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 4he act of the Chinese so inexcusable—was it so out-
rageous, so insulting to the dimity and interests of this
country as to merit the bornbardlaent of Canton ? (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies
had said that the evidence in the matter was so over-
whelming in favour of the British authorities, that he won•
dered any man could question the course they had pursued.
What was that evidence ? The British authorities had only
fair witnesses: two Chinese and two Englishmen. (Hoar,
hoar.) 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 man-
darins, 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 have the flag
flying till the ship was under weigh. there was no con-
tradiction to that. (Cheer,.) But 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 lorcha, there is no
foreigner on board; haul down the flag." (Cheers.) And
when the officer came on board 3 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 hoard, was it not reasonable of him to believe, if there
was a flag flying, that it was a pirate's flag. (Hear, and
cheers.) This was not merely a question of who was right
and who WAR wrong ; it was not only a question as to
whether the Chinese wore wrong, hut it was a question as
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 dealing' with foreign countries, while at home
even severe offences against the law did not draw down
death upon the offenders? (Hear.) Were they to be phi-
losophers in national legislation, and ruthless exterminators
in every infringement of internat:onal 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 wholes de massacre of our helpless
customers in a remote corner of the globe. (Cheers.)
Aed at best, this was but a petty misunderstanding about
a trumpery ordinance which the Board of Trade ad-
mitted 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 vessel which be
(the commissioner) believed to be
Chinese belonged to the English. Now, in asking him to
do that, did they net 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 China ? I n_-
ste id of making any such admission, Commissioner Yeh
declared, over and over again, that if the vessel were Eng-
lish he would have adopted a (Moment course, and he did
say to Sir J. Boivring that he (Commissioner' Yeb) would
be very much obliged to him if, to preventfaturemisundere
standings, ho would not sell English registries to Chinese
ships in future. (Rear, and cheers.)
HO (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 ?roper for an official in his rank to
ad-
dress to a viceroy M Commissioner Yeh's position.
Now,
without repeating what had been said in another place on
the subject, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) would just make one

quotation from Mr. Parkes's letters. On the 22,1 October
hat gentleman writes to Commissioner Yeh —" I should
.fate to your excellency that I have such clear and conclu-
sive proofs of the facts that your excellency attempts to
key. ' Now, let the house mark the words, " attempts
to deny." (Hear.) Why, in all Commissioner Yeh's cor-
respondence there was no phrase so gratuitously insulting
as that. (Hear, hear.) Would it not have been more be-
loming in Mr. Parkes to have said, " the facts on which
your excellency has been misinformed." (Iler.r.) This
young man was addressing one of the five Cabinet Minis-
tors of China. How would any of her Majesty's Ministers
like to be so addressed by the consul of another State ? •
Cord Clarendon had said in another place that "it was
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 .;lainese owner, is not an English
vessel." And Sir J. Bowling in one of his first letters
made an admission 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
had, perhaps, entirely fallen, for the sake of a vessel which
could not be 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 trui h. (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 so-', 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 international law the Em-
peror would be excused from carrying out such a provision
if it was either impracticable or pernicious to his state for
him to do so. (Hear, hear.) 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
Canton had always been based upon the latter ground.
(Hear.) It appeared from the evidence of the French Jesuits

who had visited the interior of China 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 fanaticism and preju-
dice on the part of the people might be too strong for him.
At all 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 admitted us
into those ports where he could, and only did not admit us
into Canton, because he could not? Was it our duty—were
we to insist upon it, no matter if it were impossible or per-
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
purpo,e of enforcing it? The right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Labouchere) had told the house that this was not the first
time that there had been various insults and hostilities on
the part of China, an 1 he referred especially to the 3 ear
1802. But what was the reason which Sir J. Be wring
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 1852, and
which he began to disturb in 1854. He now, with the most
innocent simplicity, pressed for ward our claim to enter the
city, because, having attacked and bombarded it with our
forces, the Chinese were animated with the greatest hatre 1
and animosity against us. The whole question was brought
before Lord Palmerston by Sir G. Bonham in one of those
despatches. than which none snore 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 oar
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 Bonham 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 Bon-
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, h •ar.) What was the advantage to be gained, then,
in the opinion of the noble lord and Sir G. Bonham—not
by the indiscriminate entrance 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 spec'al occasions
at Canton. No doubt that object was a very desirable
one ; desirable in 1819, and desirable now. But in 1849
the noble lord said 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 having been left in abeyance seven or eight
years. If the reason that we did not urge it then was the
prejudice which existed on the part of the inhabitants of
Canton, and the noble lord had wisely left it until time
had softened that prejudice, could we expect that prejudice
now to diminish when wo 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 his sanction to a diametrically opposite policy in
1851 Lord Malmesbnryalso wisely enforced the precau-

tion which the noble lord had I.tid-down ; and Loi-,1 Cla-
rendon was the first of our ministers, who, listening to the
siren voice of Sir John Bowring, had plunged us into
this Charybdis. (Hear, hear.) With regtrd to Sir J. Bow-

ring they ail know that he was an able and accomplished
man ; but he was also a man of enthusiastic temperam nE,
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 huma-

nity and justice required of a wise Government, far re-
moved from the scene, to exercise the most vigilant check
upon the acts of those agents ; and when the Government
give 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 o deal. Here, then, in his place as a
representative of the people, it was the Government that
he charged. He charged them with sanctioning, an ordi-
nance which, unknown to Parliament, had turned into a
dead letter that grand act of the Imperial Legislature which
regulated the whole trade and navigation of the country.
He charged them with enforcing that urdinance by violat-
ino the law of nations and the spirit of English honour.
He 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. DA.VIE3 opposed the resolution.

Sir J. RA.MSDEN could not agree that the house
wag 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 ab nit the illegality of the register granted to
the lorcha ; but it must be remembered that when the or-
dina'ace authorising registers was formally transmitted to
Commissioner Yeh, nearly a year before these disputes, he
made na objection whatever. lie had, therefore, precluded
himself from objecting to these registers afterwards. Igo
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 he 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 he thought
Sir J. Bowring had committed was in supposing that the
lorcha hal forfeited her register, when she certainly had
not. He read the proclamation of Commissioner Yeh,
offering 100 dollars for the head of every Englishman, and
indignantly repudiated the idea of international law being
applied to a people who could sanction such outrages.
Sir. T. HERBERT, as having served in China, strongly
condemned the proceedings of Admiral Seymour.
Sir E. PERRY excited the laughter and ironical cheers of
the home 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
ythe theß riGtiosvher mneoir.chhaad utbs atn been
altogether independent of party feelings, ho came to the con-
sideration of the question on its merits, and that considera-
tion led Lim to believe that the British authorities were
balto-
getherui.gedon to hisiintie wrong.pres
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 official, backed by a
ant course believed
strong naval force to China, who might examine into the
points of dispute,
and then act upon his own views of justice,
tempered with hurnan7ty, which the force at his disposal
would prevent being mistaken for fear.
Mr. GREGSON defended the British merchants at Canton,
awl strongly reprobated the language in which Mr. Cobden
and Sir B Perry bad spoken of them. He recommended Lord
Palmerston to insist on the strict performance of the Chinese,
as ho 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 one
must allow due weight to their opinions and representations,
we must not forget, according to the motion of the hon. 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 distinct policy might he unfolded, to which
Parliament might look for future security. Sir, lam sorry to
say that in all these particulars the speech of my right hon.
friend is a disappointment. (Hear.) The question is na+urally