The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-04 00:00:00

BUSENESS OF THE HOUSE.

On the nioti;EOfl;rdP AMERSTON, the notices
of motions were postponed till after the order of the day
for resuming the adjourned debate on China.

CHINA.-ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The adjourned debate on this question was resumed.

Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER addressed the
house at considerable length on the legal and tech-
nical portion of the question, in the course of
which he replied to the reasoning of the
learned Attorney-General, and said that erless the Go-
vernment could show that this lorcha was an Erglish
merchant ship their case failed entirely, for without
that no ship in China was under the protection of this
country. (Hear, hear.) They must also prove that
there had been a direct violation of the Treaty of 1842.
He contended there was nothing connected with this
lorcha or her cre cv that gave aclaiw to British nationality.
The hon. and learned gentleman then Memel to the
general arguments that had been relied on by the sup-
porters of the Government, and concluded by stating
that be should support the resolution of the hon. member
for the West
Cal. HERBERT supported the resolution.

Mr. KENDALL could not follow his party in voting
for this resolution, as he thought nothing could be more
unjust, ungenerous, and dangerous than hastily to con-
demn public servants at a distance. He did not say he
approved of everything S►r John Bowring had said
or donp ; but where there was matter of d .übt, ho
thought our ow❑ servants ought to be supported, other-
wise he was sure no Englishman's life in China would be
safe for a moment. He oLject.ed to the resolution on
other grounds. A man must be blind indeed if he did
tilt see that this lorcha question was made a mere dis-
guise for new political combinations. If the present
Government were removed, their a ccessors most be
composed, among others, of Lord Y. Russell, Sir James
Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. S. Herbert. Now, he
would not say anything againt those parties except this
—that he could not forget who brought us into the last
war, and who mismanaged it for us when they brought
us into it. Nor could he forget either that the noble
lord at the head of the Government brought us out of
the difficulty, and that in spite of a pressure which
few but himself could have resisted. Turning to his
own side of the house, he scolded them for cheer-
ing Mr. Cobden; and still more for cheering Sir
James Graham when he boasted of having spared
Odessa—the very thing which the Conservatives blamed
him for at the time. There was another matter. He
feared that the Peelites were working heaven and earth
to thrust the Church inta extremes. For his part, he
would rather sacrifice his Conservative principles than
see those men in power.
Mr. M. GIBSON could not understand how the car-
rying of Mr. Cobden's resolution would endanger Bri-
tish life in China. Did the Government mean to say
that if they were beaten they would at once withdraw
the protection to life and property they had hitherto af-
forded. It was said, too, that the merchants connected
with the China trade were all opposed to the resolu-
tion. But he could not find that the merchants of
England generally opposed the resolution—certainly
the merchants of Manchester did not—and as for those

in the tea trade, be hinted that a desire to dispose
of their stocks of Chinese produce at high prices
might be at the bottom of their eagerness for hos-
tilities. Then it was said that the Liberals ought
not to vote for the motion, because the Cinservatives
supported it. But the noble lord hal no such scruples
in accepting Conservative support to put down liberal
resolutions ; and the fact that the Conservaqves, who
were usually in favour of the Crown on all questions of
war, were in favour of this resolution, was a strong proof
that the resolution itself was right. He complained of the
strong and disagreeable pressure that was put upon the
Liberal members to change their votes on this question,
and vote for the Goverbment. They were begged and
entreated, as if they were electors in some small provin-
cial town before a contested election.

Mr. OSBORNE complained of the manner in which
this question had been mystified and obfuscated
by lawyers until plain men so far lost sight of the
real question that one took refege in the character
of Lord Raglan, and another in Lord Palmerston's
episcopal appointments. He agreed in all that fart
been said in praise of Sir Michael Seymour, but he
reminded the House that Admiral Seymour was jointly
reaponeible with Sir John Bowring fir all that nad been
done. He denied that Canton had been bombarded ; all
that was done was to shell a particular part of the city
where the Chinese were assembling to burn down the
factories. It was impossinle to discuss the question
from an English or European point of view. What was
i the nee of discussing this pedantry of international law
with reiiect to a nation who neither regarded European
law nor justice? He was surprised that Mr. Cobden
shou d have male a violent attack on the character of
the British merchants. It hardly became the hon. mem-
winhiesnte ortwhehro had
r p.
ties forsook their posts—the Minister who
ber to do so after havieg received from the body of
British merchants the most magnificent testimonial that
had ever been given to a member of Parliament. He
defended the character and acts of Sir John Bowring, at
through John
the Bowring,
war
time
Minister
same time that he knew well the real object of attack
onwarrsient thSeimr
never forsook
a friend, and never had a personal enemy.
from the noble lord, especially on the late Hequestiondiffered
of re-
form, and he only abstained from voting
against hint be-
cause he had not given him warning.
house was determined to upset the noblelf, however, the
he would ask in whose lorcha lord's lorcha,
were they to be put ! He
supposed in one whose foreign commodore was Mr. Cob-
den, and whose registeredowner was Russell and Co.
He believed the
coalition about to be formed would not
be o ul
p p ar, and he was sure the country would not tole-
rate a conspiracy to upset the nobly lord.
Mr. HENLEY entertained strong doubts of the lega-
lity of the register, but he bad no doubt at all that if it
were legal the reparation demanded for the wrong. was
excessive. He contrasted the oondect of the Americans
for the insult offered to their flag weUflilietn o
the f ferocity
Sir
rh
i,joLa
dis-
played by our own countrymen. The
names had been
1
Bowring were indignant that
suchremarkable that no one of
them attempted to disprove applied to him, but it was
the charges. It appeared to
him that Sir 3.
Boring bad been guilty of deliberate
falsehood ; and, in justice
to Admiral Seymour, he must
0n the face of these papers, the sha-
g dow of an impute say there WAS n -ot'
Con that when he concurred in the
of Canton he was aware of the shameful de-
-3 caption whi
; punishment
had
been practised upon the Chinese. The
Chinese had be d'l d den i ate upon, an
barbarities o
A d • but let nut the house forget who began
conuernne ,
We had bombarded the town ; how could we
. them.
wonder that the Chinese resorted to the only retaliation
intheir power and used the knife and the poison of the
- sin ? He wan for supporting our servants abroad, but
asseg
that support must have a limit, and be could not support
them when they were guilty of wilful deception and
slaughtering innocent non-combatants.
Sir E. C. EGERTON could not support the resolu-
tion, because he believed that its affirmation by this
House would endanger the whole of the British inte-
rests and British life now in China. But he hoped Lord
. ralmeratou would recall Sir J. Bowring, feud pond out a