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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LO RDS .—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woo'.
saok 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 wait into committ.N3 upon the Constabulary Bill,
he should move a Koriso 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' C ,urt,
unless he should prove, to the satisfaction of the Home
Secretary, that such bankruptcy or insolvency Ills not
been caused by fraud or extravagance.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented several Peti-
tions in favour of the exsmptiou of incomes below 1501
per annum from the operation of the income tax.
PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
L 1W 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 ho should hare occasion to occupy their
lordships' attention only a few minutes. He observed
that a decision bad 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 publin meeting, in which statements were made re-
flecting upon the character of an individual, was privi-
l.ged, or whether the newspaper which published the rc-
port was not amenaLl: to the law of libel. That decision
being undoubtedly a fit subject for public comment
had been severely criticised. It was urger' that the
cilia 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 cpoted as an authority was entirely
extra judicial. It wag 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 Leen made by
another person, he was not liabis. To suppose that the
publication of all proceedings of public meetings was pri-
vileged—whether libellous or not—would be most a'arm-
ing. What was a public meeting? Why, the meetings of
Mr. Ernest Jones were public meetings ; and if such a
doctrine were laid down, the publica'ion of sedition
alight be held lawful, nor would there would be any
safety fur 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 be 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 shod the fairness and
impartiality of such reports, however, did not protect the
neivspapers that published them from the operation of the
law of libel on account of any libellous statements they
might contain. This was the opini,m of his late noble

aid 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-
serted to accomplish the object which he now Fought
carry out. That clause was not passed, but he hoped
their loriships 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 pubic meetings ought t•.)
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.
prel rtes, who constituted the upper house, and the rev.
members of the I 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
al .o the same privilege might, under certa;n limits, be al-
-1 ►wed 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 he 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 justice might not be safely and properly ex-
tended to reports of the proceedings of the two houses of
parliament, ald of any and what other assemblies or public
meetings, undo r any and what conditions or restrictione.
Lard \VENSLEY D ALE made a few remarks, as was
understoood, in support of the view expressed by Lord
Campbell, but none of his observations reached the gal•
!cry.

The motion was then agreed to.
CU/NA.—THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Rirl of CARNARVON, in resuming' the debate,
observed that none of the facts or arguments advanced

n favour of his node friend's motion—had been contro-

verged 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 principles of interna-
tional law ; and the noble earl opposite (the Enl of Cla-
rendon) used expressions which, as coming front such a

(parter, he heard with much regret, when he spoke of
the difficulty of dealing with the Chinese in any other
way than by making them sensilsls 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 lord 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 genetal'y 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 fellows :—" 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 his native country, unliss ho bas received
from such country a certificate of denaturalisation, or
has liy some other means been released from his natu-
ral obligation." (Hear.) Now, was there any de-
naturalisation in this instance ? Not only was there
nut the vestige of concurrence on the part of the Chi ese
government, but absolute repudiation. The noble lord
(Clarendon) read the treaty by the light of the colonial
ordinance, but the colonial ordinance contravened the
lew 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 granled 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
eines the Government had given up the right of priva-
teering, but here they were claiming a right which, in
his opinion, would only be attended with much more die-
astreus consequences. He said that a Chinese ship could
not under any circumstances be realised by a British re-
gister, but the fact he believed in this case was that the
vessel had 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 him. (Hear.) There were letters to Consul
Parkes admitting that the vessel bad no register, and to
Governor Yell asserting that she had, and both under
Sir John's own hand. In his (Earl of Cernarvon's) opi-
nion, a transaction more discreditable to Englishmen had
neveric;
twe transpired.
colours .
Ile(H wase"r. )n Surelyete ne of here
ho w s
ea who wieol
a shudusbeoesn:
sure a public servant on light grounds. Men serving in a
distant country must be entrusted with sufficient powers,
t
hut here was a case in which the British Government
throw 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 Oct, Consul
awpaoal o
notgy , with
complied a n a s s
Parkes demanded the public return of the twelve men ;
four
'lees after he demanded their public return and au
with
hce thatree titfraine 4w-80huoliders
be
eis demandhail
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
Theyscarce
menly returned
ea
butin r etthueryn f or
returnedthi s ?
the
twelve
such a one as might be accepted withoutm an
a
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 tots n. The third demand was for free com-
munication, and two days after the fourth demand
was
made for free commun:cation for every foreign represen-
tative with all the authorities of Canton. Referringto Sir John Bowring's subsequent wooinge and their success
with Governor Yeb, he (Earl of Cat narvoo) was reminded

of King Richard the Third's wooing of the Lady Anne.
Sir John might exelaim—
" Was ever woman in this humour woo'd ?
Was ever woman in this humour won V'
And on his success might add—
" My Dukedom to a beggarly denier
I do mistake my person afl the while.
Upon my life, she dads, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper rn an."
Surely if Richard 111. was a " marvel]. )us improper"
king, Sir John B Jwrieg was equally as " inarvdleus
impropsr" a represeetetive of the Bciti,h Government.
The Chinese had been charged with infractions of the
treaties, but had the En4lish been guilty of no,violations
of the Trsaty of 1812 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 frorn Shanghai to Chusan.
The great question, however, was whether the Govern-
meet were prepared to support a war commenced in the
circumstances of the Chinese dispute ? What wou'd he
said if the British consul at Marseilles were to declare
war at his own discretion against the French nation, and
order the fleet to cmne up and b)inhard the town ?
Would any power in Europe he found to advocate such
a step ? He believed that if the integrity of Turkey and
Persia were essential to the preservation of the balance
of 'sewer, surely the Chinese empire was equally necee-
sary to maintain the political equilibrium of the world.
Upon the religious point of view he agreed with a great
deal that had been said ; but as for the present war
being just and necessary he must beg to diffsr from tha',
especially after thr.e Foreign Secretaries had declared
its olsject to be both unjust and unnecessary. It had
been said that injury was 'swift, but justice was sl )w.
The injury ha I been swift in this case, bet 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-
cue•ion was whether the Arrow was an English vessel,
and whether Commis-inner Yeh believed it to be so.
Upon this point there was the evidence of two Irishmen
and two Chinese against that of the Commissioner Yoh,
but the chief evidence was to he found in the conduct of
Commissioner Yeh himself, who would not so readily
have given up the Arrow had he not believed it to be an
English vessel.
Lord Sr. LEON ARDS (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 3.1 article
of the treaty ceding Hong Kong to this country the
English were permitted to have a place fn. a port and
the deposit of stores. But the British had ensheavoured
to divert the Chinese from their lawful allegiance. We
were bound to look at the ex set words of the treaty, and
maintain its just interpretation before all the word. 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 ?
Woul f anybody include in that description a treading 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, foram, &e., and by that article all vessels
cawing under the description there given were to carry a
separate register or I.cence. Bet what was the Imperial
law upon the subject of ownership 1 It had been expressly
laid down that there could be no British vessel without
British owners. In many colonies, however, it was con
tempi ated that it might be found expedient to modify
that 547th section, which defined who were to be consi-
dered British subjects for the purpo,es of ownership.
Power was therefore reserved ti her Majesty in c ivacil
to wake such modifications as circumstances mightrender
necessary. An ordinance for this purpose was issued for
the British possession in China ; but would the noble lord
opposite say that the act of 1,154 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 vessel must have
a British owner, and an owner that national sense which
gave England the great maritime position she held
amongst commercial nations. (Hear.) As a constitu-
tional lawyer, he gave it as his deliberate opinion teat
the colonial ordinance in que,tion 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 Mega ; 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. Boa-ring
bad not the slightest 'lotion himself of the true effect of
the ordinance he was promulgating.
(Elie lordship here
read the terms of the ordinance in detail ) 1-Is asserted
that the ordinance never went beyond this, that vessels
might trade with Hong Kong, but nevergave 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 Bid-
tish law, but he did not prove the statement, and mere
assertion in such a ease as this was not suffieient. 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 col ,-
nies and Hong-Kong. Then, after all, this was not a
British register at all. (Cheers and laughter.)
The Earl of CLARENDO.N—I said it was a colonial
register. (Hear.)

lord ST. LEONARDS —Yes, but a colonial register
in such a case was nothing mare 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 ro'hing at all. (Bear,
hear.) Let them take an illustration of the general
meaning. Suppose China had th.mght it right to make
war upon uq, and had conquered us instead of we con-
tuering them. Suppose we had been compelled to
make a cession Ceina, 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 11,)ng Kong, had granted registers to
all English ve,sel a coming out of Portsmouth, and had
sent them back, saying that the men were Chinese sub-
jects. The roble earl had said that Hong King was a

a
s übi:ct; Conquer-
conedhe cqoul
oe rneyd
couldcol yd,oaansd
itthpalte
at hs
ee
dl.eg ii;aptounre;
boils
might remind the noble earl had long since decided what
was
right oto be considered
a conquerednsidereda British
colonyrita
ishves:els o
all over
simplyovneerthewiltdo.
The
that colony, but it could not under any 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 ho 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 tLat 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 shio
went into a foreign p that port would look to the
country to which that ship belonged br 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 ev,ernal 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
vis .
In
Arrowasre h
ga r 'ee same
d r
merchantoi in
both u
vessels
ttereinsuCbhiuid to precisely
this case the Chinese acted upon the belief that
submitted
notasnd
a British vessel, and that they were
couldt
master,e
hy
e nrheea
wvt whehre
obo s
been
seizure
entitled to it. If they
nza i
us
very
a e tyhw aoaetuas
young
magi nya jideer
exci
s. t
iui‘vmrt
When
ene i
nd :
wasawnad a
repaired.nowrong
b which
te
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
present the flag was quietly readjusted by the master.
Here there was certainly no overwhelming grievance.
Nov, there was one remarkable circumstance to which
Yeh o in9tantly d rectal attention, and to which the Go..
vernment during the presobt discussion had not offered
sny denial. Yeh said it had been sworn by many of the
men that there was no flag, and he added that it was the

custom of Englsnd, when a vessel cave into port and at
author to lover the fl ►g and not to re-hoist until it went

-- -
away. From that practice not being attended to he in- I
ferred, and very naturally, that there was not a fieg.
Now, let their lordships remember that on the 34 Oct.
the register of this vessel wasdilivered up by the master,
who knew at that tines 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 cool I rest. Whatever the power
of the register might be under 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. e took it that
the true construction of the treaty admitted of no doubt
that every vessel under that regulation wee bound to re-
gister at the end of a year. And then there was a proviso
that the register should be exhibited every six months to
the harbour master. Directly, therefore, the time of the
register expirtd, the vessel 13st every privilege it might
have derived from that source. Now all these matters
should have been represented by Sir J. Bewring 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, arid have sought some
proper explanation before such extreme steps were taken.
But what were they to say to Sir J. 13owring representing
that this register was in full force, in spite of the fact that
it had eXplred—and in spite, too, of the fact that-he him-
self hail said that he would take time to consider whether
or not he would renew it. The register then had expire
when the 12 men were arrested on the Arrow. Yell
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
Udine. But that was objected to by Mr. Consul Parkes.
(Lord St. Lenuards) thought than; the greatest coni-
plitneet that could have been passed upon any country
was the sending back of those twelve men, and he he.
beved that the Chinese thought that, in bending them
back, they were doing all that was necessary, as in truth
they were, awl the two men demanded ought to have
been sent back in accordance with the terms of the treaty
was
between the two countries. tut all this was useless,
and the war was commenced, the city of Canton
shelled, and the commissioneee residence was destroyed
Odessa, under more aggravated circumstance.,
spared
sprareesdThere was nothing in Canton that c told aff ct their
forces, Why did they not spare Canton ? (Cheers.)
; but there was plenty in Odesia t') induce
forces to destroy it—plenty of materiel, power, and
men. But the English plenipotentiary had destroyedo ourd