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

feeling. His hon. friend who had just addressed them
had adverted to the same subject. The imputation was
a inci,t unjust one. There were speeches on both Eider of
the house in the course of the debate, which ho (Sir J.
Pakington) had heard with great regret. The hon. room-
bee for Devon port had stated that if the measure had pro-
ceeded from that side of the house he should not have
given it his support ; while the hon. member for West
Norfolk had given directly opposite views. He had said
that he should be governed by views extraneous to the
subject, and that under the influence of such feelings be
should vote against the motion.
Mr. BENTINCK explained that wilt l!e said wa=,
that he agreed in the terms of the motion, but tbat he
should be guided by other considerationq.
Sir J. PAKINGTON heard this with regret, and
thought that it lowered the character of that house; but
to say that all tliose who agreed to support the vote
were influenced by party considerations, nothing could
be more unjust. He should prove that his cwn opinion
was formed previously, on the first reading of the
papers ; and he then remarked to two friends of his, who
he believed were then present to bear him, that she
acts of our official were atrocious—that, of course, the
Government would repudiate those acts, and recd the
officials. This was the opinion he had given on first read-
ing the despatches. He much regretted that the Govern-
ment had not taken the course of repudiating the conduct
of Sir J. Bowring. It had been given as a reason that
there was a necessity to uphold our distant official in
China. If our officials deserved support, he would admit

that we ought to support them on. every point ; but, on
the other hand, to defend the conduct of an official at
all risks was most dangerous to the interest, of the coun-
try. It had been objected that the right honouradle
baronet the member for Carlisle and the noble lord the
member for London were members of. the Government
which bad sent out Sir John Bowring. It was a
proof of the misfortune of the system that in sending
out officials, we did not consider so mach their cha-
racter as the number of votes which they bad given in
that house. They were then suffering from this having
been so much attended to. At that period of the debate
ho would not enter into the claim of the lorcho to be con-
sidered. a British vessel, though the evidence fer this was
doubtful, nor whether the British flag was king or not.
Then there was the question as to whether she had the
right to carry the flag or not, though on the last question
he must say that it was no answer to say that because
the licence had expired at sea there was therefore an ex-
cuse for it not being renewed. The vessel bad been a
month in the river, and on its passage there it must have
passed Hong Kong, and he could see no reason why he
should have demanded her register. He found, in fact.,
by a despatch from Sir J. Bowring, dated Oct. 15, that
it was found on inquiry at Hong Kong, that the register
of the Arrow had not been presented at the office of re-
gistration. Here again was another proof that the Arrow
was not furnished with legal authority. Into all this, how-
ever, he would not enter. But there was a matter con-
nected with the point of law adverted to t'y the hen. mem-
ber for Tavistock. He asked them what would he the effect
on Europe if the British Government were to sanction
such proceedings ou doubtful groaned,. lie admired the
high talent of the learned Attorney-General—he ad-
mitted the power and ability of his speech, and he had
never been more struck than by the proof of it, as shown
in the manner in which ho had rivetted the a teiitionei

the house on a dry legal argument on Friday night. Yet
even he would not c )mpete with the idustrious name cf
Lord Lyndhurst. The opinions he advocated had re-
ceived the support of that distinguished man, who had
laid down the law in a manner which commanded the at-
tenti.')u of Europe. The legal authorities were, in fac,,
balanced on the question. Yet was it not a most dan-
gerous thing thus to act on a question so divided as to
the views of the legal authorities ? He trusted that the
House of Commons, iu giving their verdict that night,
would bear in mind that the eyes not only of this coun-
try but of Europe were upon them, and that the ch -
racter of their country was at stake. Our peaceful re-
lations with that great empire of China had been
interrupted, our commerce had been enda,g red, an al-
most undefended city had been unjustly bo.i birded, hu-
man tiled had been unjustly shed, and the name and
character of England had been tarnished and impaired.
This he believed to be an unex Tgerateil statement of
facts, and he thought the House of Cornmoos had a
rigs-ht to demand from ber Mejesty'e Government a better
explanation than bad yet been given of the grounds on
which they sanctioned measures 5,.) discre litablo to the
fame of this country. (Cheers.)
Mr. COLLIER deprecated this constant system of
eulogising our enemies at the expense of the character of
our own countrymen. He contended that the 1-gal argu-
ment was in favour of Sir J. Bowring, and though he
would not commit himself to an approbation of all his
acts, he upheld him on the general pri,.ciple that repara-
tion ought to besought for wrongs do :e in China cr
elsewhere, and that such force must be used as was ne-
cessary to procure it. If that motion were carried he
feared that Commissioner Yeh would insist on repara-
tion from us, and prcceed to still farther insults, and
the motion which Mr. CAden meant as the breath of
peace, would be found to fan the flames of vFar.

Sir F. THESIGER said he had not intended to al-
dress the house on this question, but after he heard the
speech of his hon. and learned friend the Attarney-Genr-
ral, he felt it to be almost an imperative duty to cx?re,s
his sentiments. His hon. and learned friend appealed to
them all not to allow their opinions to be swayed by
party motives. Of course, he considered that he himsell
was perfectly free from any such inflaence, and there
fore his salutary warning could only be intended for
those who might dissent from his own views. (Laughter.)
I Now he (Sir F. Thesiger) knew that the house al•
ways listened with impatience to a purely legal discus-
sion j but the points to be considered in this case were,
after all, not very difficult of apprehension. Tney had to
deaf with a treaty which was a mare agreement between
the part;es, expressed in plain and intelligible terms, an-I
with an ordinance which, though it proceeded froai the
hand of Sir John Bowriug, was not more, difricalt to ex-
plain than acts of Parliament. The learned Lord Advo-
cate, who always spoke well—(cheer,)—and wh ) had
certainly made the most able speech on the Govf roment
side of this question, stated that in his opinion it was
impossible to place the Chinese in the-category of those
nations to whom the strict principles of international lam
could be applied. He presumed the learned lord meant
that, considering their peculiar customs and habits, and
the strictly commercial character of the intercourse which
they carried on with other nations, those conventional
usages which were incorporated in the intercourse between
civilised nations were wholly inapplicable them. SJ far
be was disposed to agree with the learned lord ; but there
were other principles of a higher description which were
anterior to all the laws of nations, which were inherent in
our nature, and which came into action in our communi-
cation between states, whether civilised, semi-barbarous,
or even barbarous—the principles of truth, of justice, and
of humanity ; and it was not too bold a metaphor that the
jurists employed when they represented states as moral
persons, and as such equally bound by the laws of hu-
manity with individuals. (Cheers.) The hon. and
learned Attorney-General asked them to discard all these
considerations, and to descend with him to the discussion
of the peculiar language and structure of the documents
before them ; and though it might be disagreeable to
leave the higher ground, he (Sir F. Tin sigei) could not
refuse to follow bim into the close lists which he had
marked out. He was certainly rather surprised to hear
his hon. and learned friend remark that in the debate
thus far the ground upon which the discussion ought to
turn bad been entirely mistaken—(laughter)—and that
instead of discussing the question on the basis of the
ordinance of 1855 they must treat it as resting on the
supplemental treaty of 1843. To him (Sir F. Thesiger)
it was a matter of great surprise that all the able and
powerful minds which had addressed themselves to the
subject in the debate should have gone so completely
astray, and, what was more remarkabbe still, that the
acuteness and subtlety of Sir John Bowring himself
had been so entirely deceived, he having a mind so
acute and subtle that if he had lived in the days of the

schoolmen, he might, perhaps, have challenged-for him-
self the title which one of them obtained, of " the irre-
fragable doctor." (Laughter.) The hon. and learned
gentleman said that when a merchant ship entered the
harbour of another country those who were on board
were obliged to conform to the laws of that country, and ,
that the crew of the Arrow might, undoubtedly, have
been seized by the Chinese authorities if it bad not been
for the treaty in question. Now if he was able, as he be-
lieved he was, to satisfy the house that the treaty hal
nothing whatever to do with the question, the Chinese
would find an unexpected advocate in her Majesty's At.
torney-General. (Hear.) The boa. and learned gentle-
man said, the term English merchant ship used in the
supplemental treaty meant, irrespective of the manning,
a ship having a British register in conformity with the
treaty; and then he went on to say :—" The words Bri-
tish ship, or English merchant vessel, were plainly used
in the supplemental treaty, not in the technical sense
given to those words in the Imperial statute, but
in the general universal sense of a vessel belonging to a
British merchant ; in that sense only was the term
English merchant ship' in the supplemental treaty to
be interpreted." He (Sir F. Thesiger) turned, of course,
to the 17th article of the treaty, to see what was the
context, and on doing so he was aetonisbed to find that
the term English "merchant ship" was nowhere used.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) At first he thought he must
be mistaken ; but he read the article again and again ;
and he discovered that the only terms used on which
the question turned were, first of all, the title of the
article. in which British " small craft" were men-
tioned ; next the words " vessels belonging to the
English nation ; and then the words "British
schooner, cutter, lorcha." His honourable and learned
friend the member for Plymouth (fir. C. 'tier) had im-
ported a new term into the article—the term " British
built," but in the article as it before stood there was no
such words, and it was a strong argument in favour of
the motion, that those who argued the csse on the
other side could not do so without inserting in the
treaty words which did not exist there previously. Now
let the house consider what was the effect of this treaty.
The date of it was 1834, 12 years before the new-fangled
colonial registration under the ordinance of 1855. The
term " British ship," British " sloop," or " lorcha,"
had, at the time when the treaty was signed, a definite
' meaning among the Chinese ; it meant a vessel which
was owned by a British natural born subject, or a person
who bad been naturalised, or bad obtained letters of
naturalisation, and the idea that the Chinese anticipated,
when the treaty Was entered into, a new de,cription of
registration commenced 12 years afterwards, which
would enable them to appear under the disguise of British
subjects, was an idea too absurd to be entertained. (Hear.)
It was quite clear, therefore, that the vessels referred to
in the treaty were British vessels in the strict sense of
the words. In fact, the proposition of the hon, and
learned gentleman (the Attorney-General) should have
been reversed, and instead of saying that they must rely
on the treaty, and not on the ordinance for a justification,
he should have said that they mustrely on the ordinance,
and not on the treaty. (Hear.) He would now turn to
the ordinance. In the year 1855 it was considered de-
_ girable that some check should be applied to the practice