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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDA Y EVENING, FEBRUARY 27 IPt)7.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

the unoffending town of Canton ; he had en•
tered into the palaces of its Government, and
had left hundreds of widows and orphans to
mourn the losses they had sn,tained. The noble and
learned lord having again briefly referred to some of the
tecbnical points bearing on the case, concluded by ex-
pressing his hearty concurrence in the resolutions which
the Ear! of Derby had proposed.
The LORD CLIANCELLOR rose, with some excite-
ment, to complain of the charge brought against him as
ignorant of international law. He (enied the charge.
What he had said was that no international law per-
mitted the forcible seizure of a vessel sailing under a
register directly guaranteed be treaty. From that point
he was not to be displaced. If he ha 1 erred in his law,
it was either intentionally or in ignorance. If he had
erred intentionally, it was unju,tifiaLle ; if iu ignorance,
that ignorance was inexcusable.
Lord ST. LEONARDS .—You are replyina-
The LORD CHANCELLOR : Replying ! When
the Lord Chancellor of England is accused of ignorance
of the law, surPly he has a right to explain. Toe noble
and learned lord was then proceeding w.th undiminished
warmth to comment on another part of the speech of
Lord St. Leonar,ls, when several peers called loudly to
order. Oh, if lam out of order I shall sit down, said the
Lord Chancellor, and he sat down accordivaly.
L )rd WENSLEYDALE followed in au almost inau-
dil,le voice . He agreed with Lord Derby as to his first
resolution, but suggested a doubt as to the sec,,nd. On
the question of the nationality of the Arrow, he argued
that, as her licence had expired at sea, it would hold
good until she got back to her port of registry. There-
.

of King Richard the Third's wooing of the Lady Anne.
Sir John might exclaim—
" Was ever woman in this humour woo'd !
Was ever woman in this humour won 1"
And on his success might add—
" My Dukedom to a beggarly denier
I do misteke my person all the while.
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper roan."
Surely if Richard 111. was a " marvellous improper"
king, Sir John Bowring was equally as "marvellous
improper" a representative of the British Government.
The Chinese had been charged with infractions of the
treaties, but had the English been guilty of no violations
of the Treaty of 1842 in respect to the opium trade ? It
was stated that the British were refused entrance into
the interior, but the fact was that there was a road in
constant use by our merchants from Shanghai to Chusan.
The great question, however, was whether the Govern-
ment were prepared to support a war commenced in the
circumstances of the Chinese dispute ! What would be
said if the British consul at Marseilles were to declare
var at his own discretion against the French nation, and
order the fleet to come up and bombard the town !
Would any power in Europe be found to advocate such
a step E He believed that if the integrity of Turkey and
Persia were essential to the preservation of the balance
of power, surely the Chinese empire was equally neces-
sary to maintain the political equilibrium of the world.
Upon the religious point of view be agreed with a great
deal that had been said ; but as for the present war
being just and necessary he must beg to differ from that.,
especially after three Foreign Secretaries had declared
its object to be both unjust and unnecessary. It had
been said that injury was swift, but justice was slow.
The injury had been swift in this case, but it was the
duty of Parliament, whose action was unfortunately re-
trospective, to see that justice was done as speedily as
possible.
Lord METHUEN said the great question in the dis-
cussion was whether the Arrow was an English vessel,
and whether Cocernissioner Yeh believed it to be so.
Upon this point there was the evidence of two Irishmen
and two Chinese against that of the Commissioner Yeh,
but the chief evidence was to be found in the conduct of
Commissioner Yell himself, who would not so readily
have given up the Arrow had he not believed it to be an
English vessel.
Lord ST. LEONARDS (to whom Lord Wensleydale
gave way, after some demur on the part of several noble
lords) said he felt bound to come forward to vindicate
the law itself. It was purely a judicial question whe-
ther the Arrow was a British vessel. By the 31 article
of the treaty ceding Hong Kong to this country the
English were permitted to have a place for a port and
the deposit of stores. But the British had endeavoured
to divert the Chinese from their lawful allegiance. We
were bound to look at the exact words of the treaty, and
maintain its just interpretation before all the world. In
the latter part of the treaty the Chinese were expressly
prohibited from taking criminals out of British vessels,
being English ships of war or English merchant ships.
Now, could anybody doubt what that phrase meant !
Would anybody include in that description a trading junk?
The spirit and intention of this treaty were so clear that
he was surprised that any attempt should be made to
bring the Arrow into that category. But then by article
17 came the further description of English vessels, such
as schooners, lurches, &c., and by that article all vessels
coming under the description there given were to carry a
separate register er licence. Bet what was the Imperial
law upon the subject of ownership ! It had been expressly
laid down that there could be no British vessel without
British owners. In many colonies, however, it was con-
ten:milted that it might be found expedient to modify
that 547th section, which defined who were to be consi-
dered British subjects for the purposes of ownership.
Power was therefore reserved to her Maj2sty in caincil
to make such modifications as circumstances inightrender
necessary. An ordinance for this purpose was issued for
the British possession in China ; but would the noblelord
opposite say that the act of 1854 was to be inoperative ?
Was it to be pretended that the colonial legislature had
power to repeal an act of the Imperial legislature ! It
was the law of the land that a British •eesel must have
a British owner, and an owner that national sense which
gave Eaglend the great maritime position she held
amongst commercial nations. (Hear) As a constitu-
tional lawyer, he gave it as his deliberate opinion that
the colonial ordinance in question was nothing more
than waste paper. There was no room for argument
about it, because the only act of Parliament it could refer
to declared it illegal ; and without some imperial enact-
ment to authorise it, a colonial ordinance of this charac-
ter was null and void. It was clear that Sir J. Bowring
bad not the slightest notion himself of the true effect of
the ordinance he was promulgating. (His lordship here
read the terms of the ordinance in detail ) He asserted
that the ordinance never went beyond this, that vessels
might trade with Hong Kong, but never gave them power
to go into the Canton river. The Legislature of Hong
Kong gave a vessel authority to use the British flag.
Registers were granted to lorchas, but the Legislature
of Hong Kong frequently found that the Chinese dis-
graced the British flag, and that they never came back.
It was determined that this state of things
must be stopped by an ordinance, and that or-
dinance was passed. The noble earl (Clarendon) had
stated that that ordinance did not contravene any Bri-
tish law, but he did not prove the statement, and mere
assertion in such a c tse as this was not sufficient. The
noble earl had stated that the act would have been con-
travened if a British register had been conferred ; and it
must be remembered that only a colonial register was
conferred enabling the vessel to trade between the colo-
nies and Hong Kong. Then, alter all, this was not a
British register at all. (Cheers and laughter )
The Earl of CLARENDON—I said it was a colonial
register. (Hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS —Yes, but a colonial register
in such a case was nothing more than waste paper. If
it had been an imperial register he would say that they
must stand by the imperial law, but if it was a colonial
register it was clearly worth nothing at all. (Hear,
hear.) Let them take an illustration of the general
meaning. Suppose China had thought it right to make
war upon us, and had conquered us instead of we con-
quering them. Suppose we had been compelled to
make a cession to China, and the territory we had
ceded was the Isle of Wight. What would have been
said if the Chinese in the Isle of Wight, which
we had been compelled to cede, as the Chinese had been
compelled to cede Hong Kong, had granted registers to
all English vessels coming out of Portsmouth, and had
sent them back, saying that the men were Chinese sub-
jects. The noble earl had said that Hong Kong was a
conquered colony, and that the legislature of a conquer.
ed colony could do as it pleased. Upon this subject he
might remind the noble earl had long since decided what
was to be considered a British vessel all over the world.
The right of a conquered colony was confined simply to
that colony, but it could not under acy pretence be sup-
posed to apply to independent districts with which it '
had no connection, and with which it had nothing what•
ever to do. The noble lord on the woolsack, in the course
of the speech which he delivered on the last evening of
debate, directed his attention to two points— first, na-
tional law, and, second, the evidence of the vessel being
an English vessel. He maintained that the law which
the Lord Chancellor had laid down was not the law of
nations. If a nation gave a flag to a ship, and that ship
went into a foreign port, that port would look to the
country to which that ship belonged for the redress of
any grievance that might arise. A British ship in a
friendly port, as well as in its own port, was free from
all external jurisdiction, and he contended that in the
case under discussion the Arrow was not entitled to the
slightest privileges. (Hear.) What was law here was
law in China, and as regarded merchant vessels they
were submitted to precisely the same rules in both coun-
tries. In this case the Chinese acted upon the belief that
the Arrow was not a British vessel, and that they were
entitled to it. If they were wrong in that conjecture, it
was a wrong which could have been very easily explained
and repaired. The master, who was a young Irishmen,
was not on board at the time the seizure was made. When
he went back he found that his flag had been struck, and
he inquired the reason why. He was told that it had been
done by a Chinese mandarin, and while the mandarin was
Was quietly readjusted by the master.
certainly no overwhelming grievance.
present
e,nttthe wasbeetrilieewflaasg one remarkable circumstance to which
Yeh • instantly directed attention, and to which the Go.
nut present discussion had not offered
any r
denial. Yeh said it had been sworn by many of the
vmeeni
thaten
there during the
wa
was
no
flag,
and he added that it was the
custom of England, when a vessel came into port and at
anchor to lower the flag and not to re-hoist until it went
away. From that practice not being attended to he hi-
' ferred, and very naturally, that there was not a flag.
Now, let their lordship remember that on the 3.1 Oct.
the register of this vessel was delivered up by the master,
who knew at that time that it was five or six days out of
date, and in this respect he (Lord St. Leonards) thought
there had been a misconstruction of the ordinance on
which alone the register could rest. Whatever the power
of the register might be unde other circumstances, un-
less the ordinance supported it, it could not have the
slightest operation. In this case it was, of course, neces-
sary to re-register at the end of 12 months, independent
of any other circumstances whatever. He took it that
the true construction of the treaty admitted of no doubt
that every vessel under that regulation was bound to re-
gister at the end of a year. And then there was a proviso
ihat the register should be exhibited every six months to
the harbour master. Directly, therefore, the time of the
register expired, the vessel lost every privilege it might
have derived from that source. Now all these matters
should have been represented by Sir J. Bowring to the
commissioner at Canton. It would have been the easiest
thing in the world to have represented to the commis-
sioner that there had been a mistake, and have sought some
proper explanation before such extreme steps were taken.
But what were they to say to Si: J. Bo wring representing
that this register was in full force, in spite of the fact that
it had expired—and in spite, too, of the fact that he him-
self had said that he would take time to consider whether
or not he would renew it. The register then bad expired
when the 12 men were arrested on the Arrow. Yeh
offered, over and over again, to give them up, but asked
that two of them might be returned to them, because they
were convicted pirates, and subjects of the Emperor of
China. But that was objected to by Mr. Consul Parkes.
He (Lord St. Leonards) thought that the greatest com-
pliment that could have been passed upon any country
was the sending back of those twelve men, and he be-
lieved that the Chinese thought that, in sending them
back, they were doing all that was necessary, as in truth
they were, and the two men demanded ought to have
been sent back in accordance with the terms of the treaty
between the two countries. But all this was useless,
and the war was commenced, the city of Canton was
shelled, and the commissioner's residence was destroyed.
Odessa, under more aggravated circumstances, was
spared. Why did they not spare Canton ! (Cheers.)
There was nothing in Canton that c mid affect their
forces, but there was plenty in Odessa to induce our
forces to destroy it—plenty of materiel, power, and
men. But the English plenipotentiary bad destroyed

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woo!
Eack at 5 o'clock. _ _

CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL.
Viscount DUNGANNON postponed his motion re-
lative to the see of London until this day week. The
noble viscount al o gave notice that, when their lord-
ships want into committee upon the Constabulary Bill,
he should move a proviso that no person should be eli-
gible to fill the office of chief constable who has been a
bankrupt, or has passed through the Insolvents' Court,
unless he should prove, to the satisfaction of the Home
Secretary, that such bankruptcy or insolvency has not
been caused by fraud or extravagance.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented several peti-
tions in favour of the exemption of incomes below 1501.
per annum from the operation of the income tax.
PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPLENIENrAL BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
LAW OF LIBEL AS APPLICABLE TO REPORTS.
Lord CAMPBELL, in proposing the resolutions of
which he had given, said that as he did not anticipate
any resistance he should have occasion to occupy their
lordships' attention only a few minutes. Ile observed
that a decision had recently been given by the judges of
the Court of Queen's Bench upon the question whether
or not a true report of the proceedings of what was called
a public meeting, in which statements were made re-
flecting upon the character of an individual, was privi-
leged, or whether the newspaper which published the re-
port was not amenable to the law of libel. That decision
being undoubtedly a fit subject for public comment
had been severely criticised. It was urged that the
court ought to have held that a true and faithful report
of such proceedings was privileged, however libellous,
and that it was sufficient to give a remedy as against
the speaker of the libel. That doctrine was said to be
founded upon the case of the Earl of Northampton, as
reported in Coke ; but the fact was, that the decision
which was thus quoted as an authority was entirely
extra-judicial. It was the dictum of certain lords, who
were members of the Star Chamber, in reference to oral
statements, and went merely to say that if a man simply
repeated a verbal accusation as having been made by
another person, he was not liable. To suppose that the
publication of all proceedings of public meetings was pri-
vileged—whether libellous or not—would be most alarm-
ing. What was a publio meeting? Why, the meetings of
Mr. Ernest Jones were public meetings ; and if such a
doctrine were laid down, the publication of sedition
might be held lawful, nor would there would be any
safety for private character, for it would be the easiest
thing in the world for a man to get up at one of those
meetings and calumniate his neighbour, knowing that
his statements would be made public. At the same time,
there ought to he a privilege extended to journalists in
doing that which was for the public benefit. If there
were no reports published of the debates in that and the
other house of parliament, their lordships and the mem-
bers of the other house would probably feel dissa-
tisfied, while the public would suffer a great incon-
venience. As the law stood the fairness and
impartiality of such reports, however, did not protect the
ne vepapers that published them from the operation of the
law of libel on account of any libellous statements they
might contain. This was the opinion of his late noble
and learned friend Lord Denman; but that high autho-
rity added that he was strongly of opinion that it ought
to do so. Having this eminent authority in his favour,
in the bill which he introduced in 1842 a clause was in- 1
serted to accomplish the object which he now sought to
carry out. That clause was not passed, but he hoped
their lordships would come to the conclusion that the
time had arrived when the privilege which was extended
to the proceedings of the courts of law might be safely
extended to the proceedings of Parliament—that was to
the debates of both houses. Whether they might venture
to go further, and extend the privilege to other assem-
blies, he would not undertake to say. Without going so
far as to say that reports of all publ o meetings ought to
be privileged in the same way, there were meetings of a
public character from the publication of whose proceedings
there was no reason to apprehend that any danger, or
any injury to private character, would result. For in-
stance, there was convocation. Amongst the right rev.
prelates, who constituted the upper house, and the rev.
members of the 1 ewer house, there was no reason to ex-
pect that any would indulge in slander, or descend to
attack the private character of individuals. Perhaps
alio the same privilege might, under certain limits, be al-
lowed to the proceedings of county and borough meet-
ings ; but it would be for the committee and their lord-
ships to say—should his motion be agreed to—with what
restrictions the privilege should in such cases be accom-
panied. Reminding the house that the last alteration in
the law had been founded upon the report of a similar
committee, the noble and learned lord, whose remarks
were throughout but very partially heard, concluded by
moving for a select committee, to consider whether the
privilege now enjoyed by the reports of the proceedings
of courts of ju,tice might not be safely and properly ex-
tended to reports of the proceedings of the two houses of
parliament, and of any and what other assemblies or public
meetings, under any and what conditions or restrictions.
Lord WENSLET DALE made a few remarks, as was
understoood, in support of the view expressed by Lord
Campbell, but none of his observations reached the gal-
lery.

fore the Arrow must be considered as under British co-
lours. The Chinese, by taking the law in their own
hands, had violated the treaty. He was compelled,
therefore, to oppose the resolutions.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said if the law lords
actually quarrelled, and the peers of England were-puz-
zled, about this question of nationality, what must be
theconditica of the Chinese mind on the subject I Bet
there were other questions than those of law involved
—morality and feeling. Was it to be tolerated that the
powers of peace and war should thus be entrusted to their
colonial governors I To what results this might lead was
shown by the news of this day, that the Chinese had
taken the offensive—that the rebels bad joined the Irc-

perial forces, and that an unanimous attack on the Eng-
lish forces had been made, And what, after all, was the
war about I Was it for the Arrow, or its nationaliy

Certainly not : it wag to indulge the monomania of Sir
John Bowring for entering into Cinton. He could easily
understand Sir John Bowring's motive in passing that
ordinance for connecting Chinese coasters with British
vessels. For what columns of figures—what estimates

of tonnage—what Trade and Navigation Returns, it
opened up new facilities 1 The dignity of the flag
was spoken of in Sir John Bowring,r's dispatches. Was
this the way to r eva` e that dignity, to authorise
20,000 or 30,000 Chinese vagabonds to go lurking
about the seas, robbing and plundering, and short-
ing the British flag as their protection wi e❑ hunted
down? The flag was degraded—the cauntry dis-
honoured by such practices. No wonder Yeh was
puzzled at the notion of a nation's "landing its flag." This
showed the law to be posterior to the treaty, and ex-
post-facto law, and therefore not binding on the Chinese.
The appointment of Sir J. Bqwring was the original
cause of all the mischief, and their difficulties would in-
crease until he was superseded by a man of judgineut,
practical knowledge, and discretion. What firbearance
had he sho vn I What tact I What p tints of adminis-
tration of Government 1 Just as the treaty was ab iut
to expire, SirJ. Bowring had evoked thistiispute, hoping
to be lift to settle it. These transactions •could add
another century to the rancorous fe,ling entertained by
the Chinese towards the English, as welt as disgrace us

in the eyes of Europe.
The Elrl of ALBEMARLE said that the veF•sel was

✓
not&ine;e-built, but Portuguese—the bull of all
Chinese vessels was regulated by law to be of the well•
known junk form. Therefore the Chinese ought to have
judged the Arrow at once to be a foreign vessel. We
had already given way too much to the Cninese. Tney
thought we feared them, and therefore pushed their pre-
tensions further. That was the true Tartar habit. We

The motion was then agreed to.
CHINA.—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Mal of CARNARVON, in resuming the debate,
observed that none of the facts or arguments advanced
in favour of his noble friend's motion had been contro-
verted or answered, The members of the Government
who spoke on the former evening dwelt on the obstinacy
of the Chinese character, of Chinese ignorance of Eng-
lish customs and habits, and the difficulty of dealing with
the Chinese Government on the principlee of interna-
tional lew ; and the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Cla-
rendon) used expressions which, as coming from such a
quarter, he heard with much regret, when he spoke of
the difficulty of dealing with the Chinese in any other
way than by making them sensible of the laws of force.
The real question was whether the lorcha Arrow was
a Chinese or an English vessel ; for if she was
a Chinese vessel, which the whole facts brought forward
proved her to be, every ground of defence and justifica-
tion for the proceedings which had been taken by Sir J.
Bo wring and the other British authorities was cut away.
It was clear from the statement of the Colonial Attor-
ney-General himself that the Chinese residents to whom
the letters of registration were granted were not British
subjects. The noble and learned ford on the woolsack
said that the fact of the English Government authoris-
ing a ship to go to a foreign country and to carry the
English flag, made that ship as regarded that foreign
country an English ship. He would not venture to place
his opinion against that of so high an authority ; but he
might be permitted to quote against it an authority
which was generally admitted by English lawyers to be
of some weight. Blackstone laid it down that a man's
allegiance to his country could not be cancelled or
altered without the concurrence of the Legislature,
not only of the adopted state, but of the Legislature
of the state in which he was born ; but he (Lord
Carnarvon) was content to rest the case on the autho-
rity of one of the most influential members of her Ma-
jesty's Government. A few weeks since a letter was
written by Mr. Waddington, by order of Sir George
Grey, on the subject of naturalisation. In that letter
was as follows :—" I am directed by Secretary Sir Geo.
Grey, to state to you that no certificate or other act of
naturalisation granted to an alien places him beyond the
control of hie native country, unless he has received
from such country a certificate of denaturalisation, or
has by some other means been released from his natu-
ral obligation." (Hear.) Now, was there any de-
naturalisation in this instance ! Not only was there
not the vestige of concurrence on the part of the Chinese
government, but absolute repudiation. The noble lord
(Clarendon) read the treaty by the light of the colonial
ordinance, but the colonial ordinance contravened the
law of the Imperial Parliament ; and when it was
ratified, the act under which alone such ratification
could be authorised had not passed. The noble lord
seemed to have forgotten that there was no documen-
tary definition of what was or was not a British
vessel. The noble lord seemed to think that the word
" lorcha" implied a British vessel, but the fact was that
there were vessels answering that description, and trad-
ing in the Canton river, from Holland and America, as
well as from the English colony ; but with respect to
privileges, there were certain privileges granted to Bri-
tish vessels, and intended for British vessels only, and
if you extended them to every nation in the world there
would be an end to international law. It was only a year
since the Government had given up the right of priva-
tearing, but here they were claiming a right which, in
his opinion, would only be attended with much more dis-
astr ois consequences. He said that a Chinese ship could
not under any circumstances be realised by a British re-
gister, but the fact be believed in this case W 64 that the '
vessel bad no register at all. However, supposing all
these privileges contended for to be real, supposing the
colonial governor to have this extraordinary power, those
were additional reasons why he should be more scrupu-
lous in its exercise, and more anxious as regarded the
issue. But the register in this case was a fiction and an
imposture, and on Sir John Bowring's own word could
he convict hire. (Hear.) There were letters to Consul
Parkes admitting that the vessel had no register, and to
Governor Yell asserting that she had, and both under
Sir John's own hand. In his (Earl of Csrnarvon's) opi-
nion, a transaction more discreditable to Englishmen had
never transpired. (Hear.) Surely here was a shield sho
ing two colours. He was not one of those who would cen-
sure a public servant on light grounds. Men serving in a
distant country must be entrusted with sufficient powers,
but here was a case in which the British Government
threw its protection over a man who by their own acknow-
ledgment had stated one thing in one document and an-
other in another. He would ask what were really the de-
mands made on the Chinese '! He found that four succes-
sive demands had been made. On the Bth Oat. Consul
Parkes demanded the public return of the twelve men ;
four days after he demanded their public return and an
apology, with an assurance that if in 43 hours his demand
was not complied with recourse would be had to
force. This demand he enforced by seizing on the fort
and breaching the gates ; all this he did on the ground
of the attack on the lorcha alone. What did the Chinese
in return for this ! They scarcely returned a sing le shot,
but they returned the twelve men and made an apology ;
such a one as might be accepted without derogation to
the honour of this country. (Hear, hear.) The men
were released on the 22d, and on the 23d our forces set
fire to the town. The third demand was for free com-
munication, and two days after the fourth demand was
made for tree communication for every foreign represen-
tative with all the authorities of Canton. Referring to
Sir Jehn Bowring's subsequent wooings and their success
with Governor Yob, ho (Earl of Caruarvon) was reminded

- , Commissioner Yeh had been attacked, but he thought it
I would be admitted by every one who knew anything of
i Chinese affairs that Commissioner Yeh would be much
I more likely to be influenced by an attack upon his own
i private property than by the loss of the lives of hundreds
of his fellow-countrymen. (Hear.) That the attack had
been followed up with determination he was prepared to
admit, but it must be known that when warlike pro.
ceedings were once commenced, it was the most merci-
ful course to pursue them with vigour. (Hear.) Then,
as to what the noble earl had termed the monomania of
Sir John Bowring—that of penetrating into China—
all he could say was if this were a monomania of Sir
John B; wring it was the madness of several hundred
people besides. [The noble earl then read extracts
from the letters of several missionaries, to show
Inow strongly of opinion they were that attempts should
have been made earlier to obtain an entrance into
China, and from official documents emanating from Earl
Grey and other statesmen in England to the same effect )
Was Sir John Bowring atone of that opinion ? Far from
it, for all classes of persons who were acquainted with
China had c one to the same conclusion, and it was
scarcely fair to fix upon Sir Jolan Bowring the vague
charge of monomania—(Hear, hear). It must in con-
nection with this subject be remensheied, that S r John
Bowring did not insist upon the full demands which he
might have made consistently with his instructions, but
that he acted will no, d :ration. Suppose one Englishman
instead of twelve Chinese had been taken, would it have
been the duty of the English plenipotentiary, with a
naval force at his disposal, to send home for instructions
wnile all sorts of injuries and insults would have been
offered to one whom he was bound by every considera-
tion of public policy to protect. (Cheers.) He thought
not, and under the whole of the circumstances, he
thought it would be unjest to adopt the resolutions
which ca-t so strong a censure upon the British Minis-
ter. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl who introduced the
resolutions concluded hie able speech with an appeal to
the episcopal bench. Such appeals were not uncommon
in that, house, when it was supposed that the members of
the episcopal bench were not going to ♦ote just as noble
lords would like. On such occasions the members of the
episcopal bench were treated to a sermon, some times
long and interesting, sometimes short and tedious. The
noble lord wanted the right reverend prelates to sur-
render the right of private judgment, and to create a
fame for themselves by placing themselves under the
noble lord's direction. (Hear, hear.) He should make
no appeal to the episcopal bench, for he thought they bad
quite sufficient intelligence to judge for themselves, and
not to be guided in their political course by the diem-
terested advice of the noble earl. (Loud cheers.) The
noble earl then appealed to the hereditary peerage for
support, He (Lord Granville) regretted the losses which
the house bad recently sustained. That day the last
rites had been performed over one of its most eminent
members (the Earl of Ellesmere). With regard to that
appeal to the hereditary peerage, he believed it would
not have the effect which the noble earl supposed ; for
he (Earl Granville) fully relied upon the justice, can-
dour, aid public spirit of the hereditary peers of Eng-
land. He begged their lordships to remember that while
eminent lawyers and statesmen on the opposite side of
the house had denounced the conduct of Sir John Bow-
ring, they had not pointed out what he should have
done, and he thought, therefore, that, blame the Go-
vernment as they might, they would not be justified in
passing an indelible stigma upon the conduct of the
English plenipotentiary. (Cheers.)
The Bishop of OXFORD said the question had a
higher range than that of party merely. He felt that he
mu t vote for the resolutions. War was either a curse
or a stern and inevitable necessity. To justify war we
must show that we have grounds. We cannot do so in
this instance. The whole was attributable to a head-
strong consul and a thoughtless plenipotentiary. Let us
withdraw from it as soon as possible. Let us leave the
guilt of its commencement on the head of Sir John
Bowring. With us be the merit of putting at once a stop
to its continuance. Tee bishop concluded a long and
el )quent speech by asserting his intention to support the
Earl of Derby's resolutions.
The house then divided.

For the resolution—Present 53
Proxies 57 —llO
Against—Present
Proxies
Majority
The house then adjourned at ten minutes to one
•'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTBRDAY.)
The SPEAKER t )0k the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. Row tool; the oaths and his seat for Colchester.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following private bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed :—Mid Kent and South Kent
Rail way.

THE CHINA WAR.
Petitions were presbnted from Southampton, Carlisle,
Hull, Darlington, Sheffield, and other places, condemn•
log the war with China, and calling on the Government
to recall Sir J. Bowring and Mr. Consul Parkes.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING.
Mr. H. G. LANGTON moved for a return of the se-
veral seizures made and of the prosecutions for breach
of the laws relating to tobleco, between the sth
day of January, 1855, and the 5,„lo day of January,
1857, distinguishing those in Great Britain from those
in Ireland ; specifying the places where and the names
of the persons prosecuted, or from whom the seizures
were made ; the quantities and kinds of goods seized; the
precise nature of the offences charged or for which
the seizures were made ; the results of the examinations
of the goods by analysis or otherwise where se.zed for
adulteration ; whether and what judicial proceed-
ings were taken in each case; the result of such
proceedings, whether convicted or otherwise ; amount
of fine paid or imprisonment suffered ; whether the goods
seizsd were c'ndemned or restored (in continuation of
Parliamentary Paper No. 429 of session 1854.5).
Agreed to.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.
Mr. M. GIBSON moved for returns of the number of
newspaper stamps at ld. issued to newspapers in Eng-
had, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, from the Ist day of
July, 1855, to the let day of July, 1856: And, of the
halfpenny stamps issued as above, during the same
period (in continuation of Parliamentary paper No. 438
of session 1851-s).—Agreed to.

, .
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (SCOTLAND).
Mr. W. E WART gave notice that on that day fort•
night he should move to introduce a bill to abolish the
laws enacting or prescribing capital punishment in Scot-
land, to the same extent as it had been abolished by the
law of England.