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

divided, as it appears to nae, under three heads—the Ist, the
licensing the lorcha Arrow ; 2dly, our entrance into Canton
demanded according to treaty ; • and 3dly, the policy which
ker Majesty's Government intend to pursue; and the objects
at which they aim in the hostilities which have been carried
on in China. (Hear.) Now with respect to the first point, I
need not detain the house long, and especially as I need not
enter into the question of the triple illegality to which my
hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) has referred. That argument has
been stated by him with great perspicuity, while the goner 1
law of nations as bearing upon the case has just been laid
down by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Devonport (Sir E. Perry). There has, however, been a
statement made by my'right hon. friend the Secretary for the
Colonies, which, though it apparently bears upon the ques-
tion, in reality, as it seems to me, does not touch the facts
at all.. The right hon. gentleman states that for a long time-
-200 years, he says—however, it matters not how long the
period, in certain of our colonies a practice prevailed of grant- I
ing licences to colonial vessels within particular limits and •
for particular specified purposes. No doubt those passes have
been given, and no doubt they were legal, so far as they we o
not in contravention of any act of the Imperial Parliament.
If they are in contravention of any act of the Imperial Par-
liament, I conceive they have no force or efficacy. Now, with
regard to the particular question of the licensing of the lorcha
Arrow, it seems that Parliament has declared that exceptions
were to be made with regard to British vessels and British
ownership, but as there were exceptions, certain rules were
I laid down by which the use of those privileges was strictly
guarded. Amongst the rules, therefore, was one that every
ordinance of the colony should be sanctioned by her Majesty
in Council. That, I imagine, cannot be evaded nor set aside ;
and that, I believe, has not been observed with regard to the
ordinances at Hong Kong. But, sir, there is a much more
serious question, for the point bef,re us is, not whether at
Gibraltar or Malta there might be passes granted which would
be eftbetual for certain purposes ; but the question is whether
those passes, when given to persons who are the subjects of
another country, can avail to override the law of that coun-
try ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, sir, as an ex-
ample of what I mean—and I will refer elsewhere, as my
right honourable friend says that with regard to the Chinese
he need not be as particular as with others. Take the case
of Gibraltar ; there are many Spaniards residing there. Sap-
pose that one of them had been a resident for :5 years, and
got the command of one of those vessels—that he had on
board a number of Spaniards, amongst whom he had em-
ployed a man who had been lately guilty of piracy—does any
one believe that if this vessel were to go to lealag,a or Alba-
ceras, and that, if this prate were recognised, the Spanish
authorities w.iuld hesitate to take him out of the vessel and
make him subject to their jurisdiction In this respect I con-
ceive that the general law must prevail. Although your own
law may hold good in your own ports, it cannot be made to
prevail in other countries of which the crew of the particular
vessel ace subjects.. And will any man tell, mo that supposing
the Governor of Malaga or A lbuceras had arrested the man,
and that he was detained by the Spanish authorities, that the
governor would have ventured to order the commander of
i her Majesty's ship to attack either of those places, and to
burn and destroy the Spanish vessels and ports about the
place ? (Hear, hear.) I think, sir, that all will agree in
saying that no such course would be adopted. It might have
been that the Spanish authorities were wrong—the case would
tbeu have been referred home, and the Government at home
would have applied to the Spanish authorities for redress,
which would, no doubt, ultim ttely be given. (Hear, hear.)
And let me say again with regard to this part of the question,
and every part of the question which forms the gist of the
accusation of the hon. member for the West Riding, that it
is not our authorities at Canton who have raised the disputed
question, but by force of arms our officials have attempted
the solution of that for which no such urgency was required.
And after all this they appeal to the authorities. Then we
come to the next question, wh'eh is one of great importance
—that is, as to our right to enter into the city of Can-
ton. The terms of the treaty are explicit enough ; they
give us the right to enter that city, as well as the other
ports. But that question has been postponed from time to
time, and the noble lord at the head of the Government
and the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs have re-
spectively stated most able reasons and arguments against
pressing that question. It is one of those advantages worth
possessing, if obtained by fair negotiation, but the whole ad-
vantage of it is destroyed by a retort to arms. Well, Sit J.
Bowring, unfortunately, did not take that view of the ab-
ject. But more than this, he has added to this difficult qiies-
tion' which bad not been solved from the year 1842 to 1856,
that of a quarrel already existing, and this state,of things has
naturally embittered and aggravated the differences between
the Chinese Government and the local Government of, Hong
Kong. I can well imagine that the British Government
might say our treaty rights have not been fulfilled ; we have
suffered ; we will state those injuries to the Chinese Govern-
ment, and unless those injuries are within a certain period re-
dressed, we give notice of it that we shall consider it as a
cants bell, and equivalent to a declaration of war. So great
a question ought not to be solved without the full, slow, and
deliberate determination of the British Government. This
might be politic. It would certainly give the Chinese Go-
vernment a certain time to determine upon the course they
should take. It would, at least, be in conformity with the
usage of civilised nations, and not in contradiction to your
own treaty rights. But what has been done by Sir J.
Bowring and Sir M. Seymour ? This question of the Arrow
took place, I believe, on the Bth of October. On the
21st and 22d the Commissioner Yeh wrote letters which
certainly appear to me to be very like an apology for the
outrage, although Sir John Bowring said the language
Was evasive. It is remarkable that one of the seamen on
board the Arrow shows by his evidence that the animas was
not to insult the British Government, for he says that the
mandarin came on board, and looking around, said, "There
is no captain here ; there is no Englishman here ; this can-
not be a British vessel, it must be Chinese, and therefore
take down the flag." Well, is not that a proof that if there
were an Englishman on board he would not have hauled down
the flag, but would have asked him. quietly to remedy the
grievance of which he complained. (Hear, hear.) Besides
this and other evidence of their mild intentions the commis-
sioner had restored the 12 seamen that bad been taken, and
declared that never again should a foreign lorcha be deprived
of her men or have her flag hauled down. I think this case
was a very paltry affair in the beginning, and Sir John Bow-
ring might have easily arranged it by saying that he would
report it to his government at home. But, instead of that
course, on the 22d of October, Sir John Bowring and Admi-
ral Seymour make a positive demand that the entrance into
the city shall be granted, and instead of giving three months,
or one month, or one week, they proceed at once on the same
day to destroy the forts, and to recommence warlike opera-
tions. (Hear, hear.) Now, it is upon this point I think that
the responsibility of the government commences. In the first
instance they receive from Sir John Bowring and Admiral
Seymour an account of the hauling down of the flag of the
Arrow, and of the taking of an Imperial junk in consequence.
The Foreign Secretary says that the jaw officers of the
Crown were consulted, and that they declared that the
Arrow was legally entitled to the privileges of a British
vessel. The government wrote their approval of the conduct
of the authorities at Canton and say " You have done right
in taking possession of the Imperial junk." So far no great
harm was done, but still I think a caution should have been
added not to pursue hostilities further. 'Bat when they re-
ceived, at the end of December,' an account of further hos-
tilities—that Sir J. Bowring and Sir Michael Seymour had of
their own authority undertaken to raise this great question,
upon which the whole of the amicable intercourse with China
depended, it seems to me thht her Majesty's Government
should have considered that those officials had committed a
serious offence—that they had without just cause 'Raced in
jeopardy the amicable relations with a great and populous
empire, and that they had presumed to take upon themselves
the solution of a question which three separate Secretaries of
State had decided in the clearest and most explicit language
should not be, decided without a reference to the' home go-
vernment, and without due deliberation on their part. On
January the 10th the noble earl at the head of our foreign af-
fairs informs Sir J. Bowring that " her Majety's Govern-
ment entirely approves of the course adopted by Sir
Machael Seymour and yourself." Now, Ido think that this
is a very serious matter. I think that the giving of such
approbation in those few words, without explicit instruc-
tions —without saying what was to be done under the cir-
cumstances—without any notice of the assumption of autho-
rity—l think, sir, that this was a neglect of the solemn duty
imposed upon her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.)
Well, now I come to another question. It does seem to
me, serious as matters are, that it is one which especially
demands the consideration of Parliament, and upon which
hitherto we have had no information from the Government.
The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies says
we are not at war with China, Well, if. we are not at war
with China, it certainly is not the fault of Sir John Bowring,
or Admiral Seymour, or ber Majesty's Government. (Hear.)
It is the result of the forbearance of the Chinese Government
for not immediately, in all the other parts of the empire, de-
claring that we must be considered as carrying on hostilities.
Although I do not admire the Chinese civilisation, I do not
believe that any pewer in Europe would allow their forts to
be battered down, their towns to be set on fire in one or two
places, and not resent it as an attack upon the independence
and the integrity of the empire. The Chinese have net done
so, and happily we arc not at war with them. con the Bth
of Oct., and the following days, Consul Parkes asked that the
men of the lorcha should be returned ; that some kind of
apology should be made for hauling down the flag, and that
an indemnity should be paid to the owner of the Arrow for
the time they had been incarcerated. Well that was not a
very serious demand. On the 27th of the same month they
proceeded to add to that demand a further demand' which
could hardly be claimed without a resort to extensive hostili-
ties—viz., the entrance into the city of Canton. On the
25th November Sir John Bowring wrote to M. do Courcy on
the subject of this claim, and that gentleman had replied to
him with a degree of
,prudence and discretion which" wish
were imitated by our own officers, namely, that he had
withdrawn his forces which had previously acted in con-
junction with the English; that he would not undertake
any further operations without the authority of the EMperor
of the French. Sir J. Bowring then writes to this gentleman
to say that he was very sorry to find that the tricolour had
disappeared; that he thanked him for the assistance and
moral aid he had already given him in connection with the
grave events in China, " which cannot but have an important
bearing upon the question that deeply concerns us all, namely,
the revision of our tariff in China." Now, what does this
mean I You are entitled to ask whether it was wise to re-
quire of China that she should completely execute the treaty
made by Sir H. Pottinger in 1842. But this is quite another
question. You have no right to a revision of treaties—to
new terms such as being admitted to all other parts of the
empire, wiihout going to war, or being held as a justifiable
cause of war. I defy you to say that the hauling down of
the flag of the miserable Arrow, and the refusal after almost
an understanding had been come to since 1849 that the Bri-
tish should not enter Canton—l defy you to say that you
have a justifiable cause of war with China, or even that you
can claim a right of the revision of those treaties on account
of those two miserable differences at Canton. But where is
this to end ? What is the meaning of it ? You say that we are
not at war with China; that we have merely a local quarrel
with the authorities at Canton. But this new treaty which
t
you demand cannot be granted by the governor of Canton, it
can only be granted by the Emperor at Pekin, and upon
reference to the great interests of the empire. For mylead
a
eandtol
do not wish these operations to go on. I fear theay may
disorganised
state a long and bloody conflict ; but especially, in the
state of China, I apprehend that they
will
man and man,
t
lead to social
anarchy—to a rupture of relations between
and to a cessation with this country of hose advantageous
relations of commerce which have hither to existed ; and for
the purpose of a very doubtful good we risk the possession of
all those enormous benefits. The
just spoken alluded to the resentment hon. gentleman who has
which characterises I
the conduct of the Chinese. Many of those offences of which
hoieleerperaosespiene prospect e
we complain have been committed by low vagabonds. (Hear.)
He tells you at the
,tilisethgereawt
trade of silk and tea.
gainWeeltli,mleasokf
ujosfoi into our friendly commerce with that country, which is so advan-
tageous, to be sacrificed by some whim of Sir J. Bowring,
who, in order to gratifyoint,oht,esuiptatteos nthoitstompomluenigite.
war? (Hear.)
what the exact naWtuerearof those. d.emands. are. How do wee
know but that Sir John Bowring is at this moment making
fresh demands, and is adopting the most coercive means in
his power to enforce them, But the right hon, gentleman the
Secretary for the Colonies says that we must emancipate
China from her cruel and tyrannical Government.
Mr. LABOUCHERE —The noble lord has not correctly re-
presented what I said. I said I hoped that the result of
those proceedings would be to emancipate Canton from its