The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

according to strict international law. He now came to •'
a part of the c see, which he thought had called forth re-
marks a great deal too strong—he meant the letters in
which Sir J. Bowring referred to the fact of the Expiry
of the register. He should assume for the present that
the view he had st sted of international law was correct.
Bat it turned out that the register of the Arrow, having
been granted in October, 1855, had expired about a week
before the seizure by the Chinese officers. Sir J. Bow-
ring wrote a letter, in which he stated that—
" The question presents two important inquiries—first,
the right of the vessel in question, and second, the conduct
of the Chinese authorities. It appears, on examination,
that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag ; the
licence to do so expired on the 27th of Sept., from which
period she has not been entitled to protection. You will
send back the register to be delivered to the Colonial-office.
But the Chinese had no knowledge of the expiry of the
licence, nor do they profess that they had any other ground
r interference than the supposition that the owner is not
a British subject. That, however, is a question for this
Government, who granted the register, sad it is clear that
the Chinese authorities have violated the 9th article of the
supplementary treaty, which requires that all Chinese m tl-
faisauts iu British ships shall be claimed through the Bri-
tish authorities."
Tho honourable member for the West Riding hail used
very strong language in regard to this letter, calling it
" the most flagitious public document" that he ever saw.
(Cheers from the Opposition.) He did not know that
he was wise in trying to stem the torrent ofindignation
which the remarks of the honourable member had ex-
cited against the letter. Perhaps, being a lawyer, he
might be accused of sharp practice ; out, having read
the letter carefully, having formed an impression re-
garding it entirely different from that of the honour-
able member for the West Riding, and believing that
what it meant to say did not savour of duplicity, or
secrecy, or false dealing, but amounted to the simple as-
sertion of a very pertinent truth, he shouli be ashamed
of himself if he declined to state frankly what his impre-
sion of the letter was. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Bowries
said that, "the Chinese bad no knowledge of the expiry
of the licence, nor did they profess that they had any
other ground for interference than the supposition that
the owner was not a British subject." Did that mean,
"Don't tell the Chinese—don't let them know how good
a case they have—it is lucky they were not aware that
legally we had no means of resisting them ?" Not at all.
Sir J. Bowring meant to say that when the Chinese
boarded the Arrow and tore down tur fl ig they in-
tended to insult us—( ronical cheers from the Opposition)
—and that it made no difference as far as the insult was
concerned, whether the register had expired or not.
(Cries of " Oh, oh !" and cheers ) Would any hon-
ourable and learned member venture to say that it
was not a princyle of international law that if a man
committed an outrage upon another without a kno
ledge of facts which might justify it he was liable to
reprisals as if those facts had no existence ? Teke the
case which he put a while ago. He believed that in
America there was some limitation to the period within
which a vessel could carry a national flag. When the
Chinese fired upon the American ships, believing them
to be American ships, with the American ensign flying
at the masthead, could we imagine our high-spirited
brethren on the other side of the Atlantic would have
forborne to make immediate reprisals if it had bean
alleged that, unknown to the Chinese, the liberty of
carrying the American flag had expired ? (Hear, hear. )
Was that to be the rule of those who represented
Britain abroad ? Were they to stop before they re-
sented an insult, in order to discover a ground which
those insulting them could never have discovered ?
The very essence of an insult consisted in the animus of
the person who offered it, and he was perfectly ready
to adopt Sir J. Bowring's opinion, that it made no differ-
ence as to the course to be followed in demanding re -
dress for the insult that the licence of the lorcha had
expired if the Chinese had been intent upon insu!ting
the British flag. He quite agreed ton with Sir J. Bow-
ring, that it rested with the Government which had
granted the register to determine whether or not the
registewernained in force ; and if the vessel were bona
fide returning to her port where the register might be
renewed, but owing to a stress of weather were detained,
s s that the licence expired in the interval, it was for the
Government to decide whether she was still entitled to
be regarded as a registered vessel. That was Sir J.
Bowring's view, and he said, " The Chinese did not
know at the time that the licence had expired, and if
they had known it it was a matter for our consideration,
and not for theirs." Thus stood the case, and although
' it was easy to say that it was a matter of small moment,
that we were making a mountain of a molehill, and that
we were going to war about a trumpery I ntcha, yet, if
there was a de!iberate insult offered to the British flag,
what ought Sir J. Bowring to have done? No doubt, the
fact of the expiry of the license placed him in a difficulty,
because it enabled the Chinese authorities, who had acted
upon totally different grounds, to raise a quibble on the
point, but he (the Lord-Advocate) contended that great
latitude was to be allowed under such circumstances to
those who were on the spot, and he could not forget
that while people in this country were discussing the
conduct of our plenipotentiary abroad that conduct had
met with the approbation of every person, not a Chinese,
who was upon the spot. It had been approved by the
British admiral, by the French admiral, and by the Ame-
ricans. If the French and the Americans thought that
we bad beers precipitate they would have said so ; but the
fact was, that there was no one who was cognisant of the
proceedings as they arose who did not regard the steps
which our representatives had taken as perfectly justifi-
able. Moreover, there was scarcely a man who had a
practical knowledge of the subject, and who had been in
China and knew the Chinese, who would say that S'r J.
Bowring had acted wrongly. (Oh !) Ile believed that
those who were connected with the China interest were
all but unanimous in that view, and he did not think
that such a general concurrence of opinion could have
arisen if there was not something more important in the
times and circumstances of the affair than the mere seta-
ing of a lorcha. Ths noble lord the member for London
stated on the previous evening that tl e Government, in
their despatches, had expressed no feeling of sorrow or
regret for the bloodshed that had taken place. He did
not think that any such expression was necessary. It
was impossible for any one to view without regret the
bombardment of such a town as Canton, but he did not
see that it was requisite to give utterance to the senti-
ment. If the Government believed that the British ice
presentative had acted properly, it was their duty to
support him publicly, and not to condemn him either
with unjust suspicion or faint praise. He did not say
that every person would have acted precisely as Sir J.
Bowring had done in the matter ; but the moment was
one of great trial, requiring promptitude and decision of
action, and he contended that down to the period of the
seizing upon the lorcha there was nothing in the con-
duct of our representatives which the house could
condemn. This brought him to the second part of
the case—did we adopt unreasonable measures upon the
seizing of the lorcha ? No doubt the seizing of a lorcha
was a small beginning for a great war ; but every one was
aware that, in dealing with Orientals, it was a most dan-
gerous thing to neglect small beginnings, and that if we
submitted to trifling injuries and insults more important
ones would follow before long. Above al! things, unless
we showed a jealous sensitiveness of anything that was
intended as an insult it would he impossible to keep our
footing there. Upon this point he should read one sen-
tence from the work of M. Hue on the Chinese Empire,
who, writing dispassionately upon the subject, said :
" We have observed elsewhere that the Chinese, and es-
pecially the mandarins, are strong against the weak and
weak against the strong. To domineer over and crush all
around them is the object they constantly have in view, and
to attain it they have an inexhaustible resource in their
native cunning and pliability of character. Once allow
them to get the upper hand, and it is all over with you ;
but if you can only succeed in mastering them, you will
find them ever after as docile and manageable as children.
You may turn and twist them which way you will; but
beware of showing yourself weak with them for a moment,
for they must be ruled with an iron baud. The Chinese
mandarins are pretty much like their own long bamboos.
If one can but manage to get hold of them in the right
way, they are easily bent double and kept so; but if for a
second you let go, they are up again in a moment as
straight as ever."

(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It was quite manifest, then,
that it was impossible to measure the magnitude of the
line by the apparent smallness of the commencement ;
and this was not the first war in the East which had
bad its origin in small beginnings. Ile remembered a
war which did not turn out of very long duration, but
which was very glorious, as wars were calla, which
brought great honour to those who c inducted it, and a
1 gttoore
ataht
the
accession of
0a
orl.i territwhichoryhaathdo,
been
thisewe which
ni
oshusot country—ho.ende d
ibtya
ao alluded
rLoir,
Bri-
tish merchant. A noble lord in another place, having
commentedwhich bad
givenu pon
rttha
oe tt roi
thatfling nwaatru, r
we
acaf
thus
ci
answeredr cum
the Etrl (if Derby in 1853 :—s.anheye
"He had no hesitation in Entering into an ex rn. t'• i
of the representationg which his noble frierultfibresatGportyneecarene.
iv.
General had seat home of the necessity of his
jogs in sanctioning the course which he felt it necessary to
adopt, and in corning to the conclusion that, reluctant'y
as ho had been compelled to undertake hostile operations
against Ava, the amount of insult, if not the extent of the
individual injury done to British subjects, was such that,
if it were felt neces.,ary to maintain the prestige of the Bri-
tish character in India, and to guard ourselves from future
insult and injury, they must not be allowed to pass unnoticed
and unredressed. His noble fries I had stated very truly
that this was not the first offence which had been offered by
the Burmese. It was not because a loss had been sustained
by a British merchant to the extent of 9031. that we hail
b3en compelled to demand of the Governor of Rangoon
first, and of the King of Ava afterwar is, a thorough in-
demnification and reparation for the insult and injury
which had been inflicted upon a British subject; but it was
132 c luso, from the year 1826, a succession of insults and
encroachments had gradually deprived us of all the bene-
fits which had resulted from the last war with Burma!),
and driven our Minister from the post which be had bo..ii
directed to hold, had gradually deprived us of all the pri-
vileges to which we were entitled, and had succeeded in
eheeweyet,ing the operations of our commerce—because each
from
cve insult bad been tamely acquiesced in, perhaps
continuedt
tGovernmentheeeinjuries
ion de au
insults
day--it
iwaseh had
ernasoev,er.
at length made it incumbent on the Governor-General not
particularto pa
ss the
he
dlidir ietelato uhte
ediscussingitate te e thea t meritshat who f thisthe
papers should be produced they would comy'pletely beeanr out
ha I had recourse to hostilities it the assertion that, unwillinglytas the Governor-General
_iavwans impossible for him to
haveshve avoided them, and t
themi 'b
vigorously i getefroerdwaurps% them,
necessary to carry
So said Lord Derby on the Burmese war. (Cheers.) He
(the Lord Advocate) did not stand there to justify all
wanwhich we had undertaken under such circumst n the
but he contended for the nece=sity of looking at
a'l these
facts with which each case was surrounded. Hon. gentle-
men appeared to be quite enamoured and enchanted with
Chinee compo-itioo. No doubt in composition they
txcelled, and, if they were only as trustworthy in nego-
tia'ion and as true in action as they were elegant in
ship
penman ,
our relations with them would be much
more agreeable than they were ; but while they were all
honey upon paper they were quite the opposite in action,

for all the time Commissioner Yeh was writing plausible
d'spatchos to Sir John Bowring, he was exciting his
own pepulece against the British in order to provide a i
pretence for refusing to admit our. ainbagsador. it was
impossible to judge from their writings, then, how such
persons should be dealt with. (Hear, hear.) It must
be remembered that the Chinese Government was
it the same time arrogant and weak, and that very
weakness much increased the difficulty of dealing with
it. Commissioner Yeh admitted the fact, and although
no doubt ho had exaggerated the difficulty of dealing
with the people under his control, still unquestionably
some difficulty did exist. As an instance of the weakness
of the Government Commissioner Keying in 1844 said :
—" We cannot let you into Canton juet now because the
people are much excited against you, but wait two years
and then you will be entitled to admission." There was
no doubt, therefore, that the imperial ceremissioners had
some difficulty to c intend against in governing the Chi-
nese people, but in dealing with nations of that descrip-
tion, nations which were not always able to fulfil their
obligations, it was necessary to tak© advantage of fa-
vourable opportunities for enforcing their fulfilment.
Some persons might think that when the men who had
been seized on board the Arrow were sent back the mat-
ter might have been allowed to end there. (Loud cries
of "Hear, hear.") That was of course a matter of opi-
nion—("hear, hear," and laughter)—but it was to be
considered whether or no the opportunity was a favour-
able one for enforcing the fulfilment of the treaty of
1849. The mere return of the twelve men was no satis-
faction for the insult which had been offered, and there
could be no doubt that they ought to have been sent
back as publicly as they were taken away. If that had
been accepted as a reparation, the Chinese would have
at once said, "See these Englishmen, they are willing
to put up with insult," and in all probability they would
have added insults more grave. But then came the
question, was it a proper opportunity for enforcing our
right of admission into Canton—not free admission, but
that reasonable opportunity for communication with the
Chinese Government from want of which great difficul-
ties had arisen, and which was permitted by all civilised
nations ? They had admitted the ambassador from Siam
and representatives of other Powers, but they refused the
British plenipotentiary. The noble lord the member for
London had stated that notice ought to have been given
to them of our intention to enforce the provisions of the
treaty ; but, it should be remembered, we were entitled
to enforce the observance of the treaty at any time, it had
been made the subject of a correspondence, and in en-
forcing the right of a personal audience with the Chinese
Minister Sir J. Be wring was only doing what he was
allowed by treaty to do, and therefore he had not done
anything to deserve the censure whicld it was now pro-
posed to pass upon his conduct. He bad been driven to
trespass longer than he had intended upon the patience
of the house, but he besought the house to consider well
what policy ought to be pursued. It must be remembered
that the proceedings which were now being discussed had
taken place two months ago; and was any one prepared
to retrace the steps which had been taken ? He would
venture to say that whatever might ba the opinion of
any man, no one, when he saw how much depended upon
what had been done, would be prepared to retrace those
steps. With interests so grave at stake it would be bet-
ter, and even more just, even if a false move had been
made, to proceed rather than to go back. If ever there
were anything on the score of justice or morality which
the house deemed worthy of censure, they must remem-
ber the question of policy, and to retrograde now would
be to raise up a barrier between the Chinese and the
English more dangerous and difficult to pass than any
which had yet existed. The house must recollect how
important it was that the representatives of Great Bri-
tain throughout the world should have a firm hand, and
allow no insult to the flag of Great Britain. The hon.
member for the West Riding had spoken about the hor-
rors attending the bombardment of a town containing
2,000,000 inhabitants ; but he could not find in the papers
before the house anything like the sufferings described,
nor was h e disposed to accept Yeh's account of the mat-
ter as being strictly true. On the contrary, he thought
that 'what was done, if it were necessary that it should be
done, had been done in the most moderate manner.
(Laughter and ironical cries of " Hear, hear !") From
the dense population of China a war with that coun-
try must always be a horrible war, and therefore, cer-
tainly, care ought to be taken how one was entered
into. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.') But, on the
other hand, by not acting with readiness and prompti-
tude when the occasion called for the exercise of those
qualities, calamities and horrors infinitely more horrible
might be incurred hereafter. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE contended that the ordinance was
altogether illegal, and that the acquiescence of the Chi-
nese wool I not make it legal. And if the right of issuing
ord n tnces were legal, stilt as the licence in this case had
expired, the British navy were not called upon to inter-
fere for its protection. He could but express his horror
at the conduct of Sir John Bowring, who, knowing that
the lorcha was net entitled to hoist the British flag,
studiously concealed that fact from the Chinese. The
Lord Advocate appealed to the fact that the foreign re-
sidents at Canton appraved of the conduct of Sir John
Bowring. But did those foreigners know, what Sir John
Bowring knew, that the lorcha had no right to theßritish
flag ? Were they aware that the licence had expired ?
The Lord Advocate had also asked them to stand by
their agents. But would they stand by injustice? Would
they stand by spoliation and blood I Was it to be said
that the Parliament, which put down music in the parks
on Sunday, would tolerate such a glaring violation of
the fir6t principles of Christian morality ? If they did,
he could only remind them that chief among the vices
the Christian Book reprobated, was the sin of hypo-
crisy.

Mr. HORSFALL was content to rest his opinion
and the law of the case on the opinion of Lord Wens-
leydale. He defended the Liverpool Association from
the attack made on it by Mr. Cobden, and pointed out
to the house that that association did not urge on Lord
Clarendon a new war, but only asked, if a new treaty
were necessary, it would be desirable t insist on free ac-
cess to all the rivers and ports of China. He ridiculed
the modesty of the member for the West Riding, and re-
minded the house that Russia, which he was to crumple
up like a piece of paper, had been found a piece of very
stiff paper. He concluded by refusing to vote for the
motion, because it was in effect a vote of censure against
the Governor, the Admiral, the Foreign Secretary, and
the Government, and because, if it were carried, it
would encourage the Chinese Government, and he (51r,
Horsfall) would not be answerable for British property
or British life.
Lord R. CECIL defended Mr. Cobden from Mr.
Horsfall's attack ; and, with reference to the offer of
reward for the heads of the English, he reminded the
house that we had been repeatedly tnld we were not at
war with China. If we were not, then our forces were
acting as pirates on the Chinese coast. He would ask,
if a set of pirates or buccaneers wer3 vexing our coasts
would not we offer a reward for their heads ? Ho could
not understand the argument that had been so much used
in this debate, that we must stand by our agents. That
doctrine had already involved us in many troubles, and
was likely to involve us in more. The character of
England was tarnished by these proceedings on the
Continent, while in the East our conduct had inspired
the nations there with a horror of our approach. It was
time that this state of things should be ended.
Sir C. NAPIER had so high an opinion of the mode-
ration, humanity, and discretion of Sir Michael Sey-
mour that he would not for a moment believe that that
gallant officer would have fired one unnecessary shot
against the Chinese. He was certain that air Michael
Seymour was conscientiously convinced that the Arrow
was to all intents and purposes a British vessel, It was
said that her licence was out, but he could not under-
stand how that licence could have cxpired until ber re-
turn to the port from which she had sailed. It was said
the Chinese did not know that the Arrow was a Britigh
vessel. He did not care whether they knew it or not ;
the British flag was flying and they hauled it down.
What was demanded ? They were only asked to
send back the men in the same public manner in
whic'a they had taken them away, not to send them back
in a iinsakiog Frivate way—and to make on apology,
Good God ? Was there anything extraordinary in that ?
If a man had his hat struck off, or was knocked down,
he was entitled to an apology. We had only asked for
an apology, and that was refused by the Chinese Govern-
ment. Whin France WAS at war with Mexico the French
Admiral in a hasty and improper manner went on board
an English man of war and took the pilot out by force.
He remembered perfectly well that the officer on the sta-
.

Lion and the admiral were very ill thought of for ;()t re-
senting this in a most positive manner. Had he (Sir C.
Napier) been there he should have insisted upon Prince
Joinviile going on board the very manof war from which
he had taken the pilot, and making a public apology,
and if he had not done so he must have taken the conse-
quences. He (Sir C Napier) would mast certainly have
sent him to England. In the pres,nt case. supposing that
S.r Michael Seymour, knowing that the English flag had
been hauled down and insulted, had taken no notice of

the matter, would not the papers have been lull of the
insult, and would not Admiral Seymour have been se-
verely condemned for not avenging it? Hon, gentlemen
had
du
nol d he
rei t saidan
that
hht et
o badb e
noton bothdon eh sidesi
s duty,'d th
tehhaot uhsee
recalled ; and he (Sir C. Napier) verily believed that he
would have been recalled. They blamed Sir J. Bowring,
hut they did not blame Sir M. Seymour ; but if Sir J.
Bowrieg was to bia,ine, Sir M. Seymour was also to
blame. (" No.") The commander-in-chief was bound
to use his own discretion, and if he thought Sir J. BJw-
ring was doing wrong it was his duty to refuse to obey
any orders from him. It might have been better to have
seize,' a war junk, and keptit until reparation wag made,
but there was no war junk there, and if Sir M. Seymour
had pocketed the affront the Chinese authorities and the
authorities of other nations woul I have said, " Whit a
mean-spirited man this British officer is. He has seen
the British flag hauled down before his face, and he has
not the courage and resolution to resent it." They must
regret that the lives of innocent people should have been
sacrificed, though there did not appear to have been
much loss of life in this unfortunate affair ; but if there
had been loss of life it was tLe fa.ilt of the Chinese Com-
missioner. He must again repeat that he knew Sir M.
Seymour to be so just, so humane, and so discreet an offi-
cer that he was quite certain he never would have gone
to the extent he had if he coo d re. lady h -ve vindicated
the honour of his country in any other way, (Cheers.)
Lord GODERICH supported the resolution expressly
on the ground that it was a vote of censure against Sir
J. Bowring, upo.i whom he believed the whole guilt of
these proceedings ought to be cast. He had a high re•
spect Lr the honour of his country's flag, and ther. fore
he could not bear to see it tarnished.

Mr. BENTINCR was ready to agree to the resolution
as an abstract proposition. but he had reason to believe
that the consequence of the house affirming it would be
to complicate matters in China still more than they were
at present, and could endanger Britifa life and property
iu China. On the ground, therefore, he must decline
to support the resolution. But he had another motive.
He was most anxious to see a purely Conservative' Go-

vernment in power, but ho would never while he held a
seat in the house vote for a resolution which by remov-
ing the present Government would make way for the
Conservatives, in conjenction with those right hon. gen-
tlemen who had been c incerned in the anti-Protestant
and democratic movements (the Peelites and Manchester
men) of the last few years.
Admiral BERKELEY (te whom Sir J. Graham gave
way by order of the Speaker, after some noisy calls from
both sides of the house), deprecated the coloured account
put forward to the house by the hon. baronet oppo-
site (Sir Thomas Herbert) of the conduct of an absent
servant of the Crown, and whose proceedings he
(Admiral Berkeley) felt called upon to vindicate. Sir M.
Seymour had never fired a shot until his captain had
been ashore to endeavour to make peace. If the opinion
were to gain ground that admirals were never to fight
until they got instructions from home, they had far bet-
ter be kept at home until they are wanted. If coo r
there was a man fitted to command it was Sir M. S,y.
moor. He was not only a great commander but a good
Christian. The gallant admiral had been charged with
refusing to fight on a Sunday, and he (Admiral Berke-
ley) certainly felt that that was not a day for fighting,
but that was nut his only reason. IL delayed purposely
in order to give the Chinese another day to consider.
Lord St. Vincent used to say, First try your ambassador,
and when your ambassador fails, call in your admiral.
That was the course adopted on that occasion, and he be-
lieved that the gallant admiral was fully justified by the
circumstances in all he did.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he should have given a
silent vote but for a duty that he felt he owed to an ab-
sent friend. The gallant admiral (Sir M. Seymour),
whom he had the honour to know and number amongst
his friends, was one of the most humane and discreet
officers in her Majesty's service, and a better selection
for the command of the war in China could not have been
made. He would also add that no man could be more
certainly influenced by motives of humanity than Admi-
ral Seymour. The right hon. gentleman who last spoke
said that when the ambassador failed the admiral was to
be appealed to, but there were great difficulties upon
that point. There was the difficulty of the question of
law, of the question of policy, and as a question of hu-
manity and religion. But then there was further the
question, how far an admiral was to be considered sub-
servient to a civil officer, whose judgment was perhaps
by no means superior to his own. His (Sir J. Graham's)
own belief was, that there should be no doubt whatever
about the quarter where the power was really vested.
He also thought that the admiral ought to be considered
ministerial in cases of that sort, and that the civil offi-
cer should be considered as the representative of the
Crown. The responsibility of the civil servant who gave
the order for war was very great, but how much greater
was that of the Government who delegated the authority
for that purpose to a civil officer unaccustomed to war-
fare, and very probably having but little knowledge of it.
Withl regard to Sir J. Bowring, he, with many other
members of that assembly, had had the opportunity of
knowing him, and watching his character and conduct.
' He would, therefore, make no hesitation in stating his
candid opinion of Sir J. Bowring. He believed he was a
man who would suddenly form very strong opinions upon
very slight impulses, and that he was more remarkable
for self-confidence than for the soundness of his judgment.
There was grave responsibility in appointing him our re-
, presentative in China, but having appointed him, the Go-
. vernment must of course uphold him, and identify them-
selves with all he bad done and with his reasons for do-
, ing it. But, nevertheless, it was not right to press too
hardly upon the representative of the Government in
China ; for if Sir J. Bowring had erred, it was by no
means clear that he did not believe he was giving effect
to the wishes of the Government. Upon the question of
law he should not venture to say much. He had waited
anxiously to hear the opinion of some law officer of the
Crown, not only upon the question of international law,
but the law bearing on this particular case. It would be
presumptuous in him to express any opinion upon that
subject, where so much doubt existed even amongst the
greatest authorities. It was clear that the question of
the Arrow was of mere pretext, for, assuming that the
Chinese had erred, surely the smallest reparation for such
an error might easily have been accepted. Surely on the
principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth fora tooth, a junk
, was a good reparation for a lorcha. Not so Sir J. Bow-
ring. He was bent on obtaining a triumph that all his
predecessors had failed to obtain, upon the question of
access to the city of Canton. He was bent on being re-
ceived into that city amid admiring hundreds of thousands,
surrounded by all the pomp and circumstance of a public
triumph, a hundred tom-toms accompanying him. (A.
laugh.)' So some of the concessions offered to him were
accepted. This disputed point of the right of entree was
to be a matter of triumph with a view, as he considered,
of promoting English interests. This question had occu-
pied the attention of four or five Secretaries of State in
succession, and each had come to the conclusion that this
treaty should not be enforced without authority from
England. The Government of Lord John Russell had
positively prohibited any attempt to enforce that condi-
tion. The Government of Lord Derby had been as posi-
tive. He therefore was of opinion that Sir John Bowring,
feeling himself bound to carry this point, had reason to
think that the moment had arrived when, consistently
with principles laid down in England, he might venture
upon this business. The last despatch in 1849, written
by the noble lord, was not so pesceful in its spirit as any
of the preceding letters on the subject. He found in th et
despatch these words ;--" The British Government well
I knows that if occasion requires a British mil tary force
would be able to destroy the town of Canton, and not
leave one single house standing, and cou:d thus inflict
the most signal chastisement on the people of that city."
He expressed his amazement that after the avowed order
of the Government in the Russian ,war that defenceless
cities should be spared, such a course as bombarding Can-
ton should have been spoken of in terms of approbation.
This was a course which he said ought to be arrested. He
had heard with pleasure that there had been a protest
against it in Canton by Russell and Co. There hat; also
been a protest against it in this house by Russell and
Co.—(a laugh)—which would be remembered in its an-
nals when the miseralle squabble of the lorcha had been
forgotten. He thought the resolution of the hon. gentle-
man the member fur the West Riding temperate, mea-
sured, and moderate in its terms, and therefore wor
thy of support. He could not for a moment hesitate
between that resolution, and being a party to the ap-
probation given to the proceedings at Canton. The
division to which they were about to come would be
regarded with 'immense interest by the people of this
country. He thought that " Russell and Co." would be
held to be subject to very limited responsibility. He
thought the responsibility of that vote was near at hand,
and that every member in that house would be called
upon to account for that vote. (Hear.) But whatever
might be the question with regard to any human tribu-
nal, he believed that the conduct of the Government
whether regarded as a question of law, as a question of
policy, as a matter of humanity, or more solemnly in re-
ference to their Christian principles—he believed it to be
utterly indefensible, and he never gave a vote with a
more clear conscientious conviction of its propriety than
in voting for the motion of the hon. member for the West
Riding. (Loud cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the question
before the house had been debated upon the principle of
humanity, of justice, and of policy, and in his opinion
the first and most important consideration in dealing
with it was, whether what had taken place in reference
to the war in which we were engaged with China was or
was not consistent eith justice ? In entering upon that
differed from those opinions which had been question he must beg very respectfully
with so much eloquence by noble and lerrned lords in
obesetnatedetitiivaetrheei
another place upon a previous evening. Of those opi-
nions he would present to the house a short analysis, for
great as was his respect for the assembly which he had
the honour to address, yet he could not compare its de-
liberations, in c 'nnection with the subject under discus-
sion, or the arguments which bad been advanced by its
members, with those which had elsewherebeen delivered.
If he could only satisfactorily answer the arguments
which had been urged elsewhere he thought be should
not have failed in disposing of those which bad been ad=
vanced in the House of Commons. (Hear.) The argu-
ments to which be alluded were, in the first place, that
the colonial ordinance upon which the validity of the
register of the Arrow was said to depend was at
variance with the Imperial statute, and in consequence
of no value whatsoever ; secondly, that . even on
the supposition that the colonial register was valid, that
of the Arrow had expired, and had been no longer of
legal effect ; and thirdly, that even if it weregranted that
the colonial ordinance was of force, it c mid not exempt
the Arrow, being Chine-te property, from the authority
and jurisdiction of the Emperor of China. Now, he was
desirous to lay before the house that which be con-
ceived to be in reality the law in reference to thosethree
propositions ; and he might, before proceeding to do so,
ho permitted to remark that in his opinion the whole
question had been put upon an erroneous basis, when
the title of the Arrow to the character of a British vessel
was based on the validity er non-validity of the col tnial
ordinance—a circumstance which in point of fact was
wholly immaterial to the d ci,ion at whible they ought t•
arrive. TIM title of the Arrow to the designation of a
British vessel rested upon the supplementary treaty
which had been entered into between this country and
China in the year 1842, and he must say that bethought
a noble and learned lord, who had spoken in another
place, had based his argument upon a totally wrong foot-
ing in stating that the vessel in question, if she had been
in
th whichotri et
i eThsah oda faiechse: ue
n ircr.
oei gudhn tta
rtyun
aad
nne
trdocnti
that
ca
but
emeasnnt ay
vn
icuseiffst
:sndudebehyr asthea g tahi
ano
uss et-
our municipal law who might happen to have been on
board, might be seized and taken away. The noble and
142 , the Arrow, a any learned lord might have known that but for the treaty of
8h eri a shipb le
to
on
bt he ev
visited
obfyCtaini e
ton would, in accordiu ce w.th the principles of general
international law, o
have r y other
liable
Chinese authorities, hut that the supplementary treaty,
which must in the present else enter into the argu-
ment, described exactly the class of vessels to which
the Arrow belorged—a class of vessels which by sti-
pulations made between England and China were, fur
the purpose o! local and coattng commerce to receive
a special protection and, as it were, to be naturalised.
The words of the 17th article of the treaty were,
" That every British schooner or lorcha shall have sail-
ing orders prepared and registered in Chinese and Rig-
lish under the seal and sienature of the Chief Superin-
tendent of Trade," ate. Now every lorcha whiob received
such a register was by the very tenor of the treaty con-
verted into a British lorcha. (Cries of "No, no.") Yes;
such a vessel would be entitled to the privileges set forth
in the treaty. The colonial ordinance was nettling but
a municipal regulation, which for municipal purposes
had been superadded to the general international law.
A contract for such purposes had been entered into be-
tween England and China, as set forth in the very terms
of the treaty ; and if the Arrow had complied with the
terms of that contract she must be said to have been

within the meaning of the treaty. Now whatever was a.
British vessel within that meaning could not, properly
speaking, be boarded by the Chinese authorities without

a violation of contract, and was fully entitled to the pro-
tection of the British consul. But it had been urged
that the calling licence of the Arrow had not been in
cenferteity with the eelluial ordinance. Ho, however,
must say, with great submission to the noble and learned
lord by whom that statement had been made—and he
said so with the more confidence because he was fortified
in his opinion by the authority of one who was better
versed in the principles of international law than, per-
haps,4ny other man in England—he must say that the
colonial ordinance, being a matter of international law,
could not be revoked by the Chinese, and that the only
thing to be appealed to was the language of the .treaty.
Before he discussed the language of the treaty, how-
ever, it was desirable that the house should understand
what was meant in the Imperial statutes by the term
" British ship." (Hear.) That term, in the sense
in which it appeared in the statutes in question, had be, le
introduced into our law in the old Navigation and
Registration Acts, and meant, not ships belonging to
British subjects, but such vessels as were entitled
to the privileges and advantages which had been by
the Navigation Acts, and was now by the Merchant
Shipping Acts, secured to certain ships coming within
peculiar conditions. There were ships manned by
foreigners which did net fulfil any of the conditions
of the statute, but which were still British merchant
ships, inasmuch as they were the property of British
subjects. Now the words "British ships" were plainly
used in the supplementary treaty, not in the sense given
to them in the Imperial statute, but in the general sense
of vessels belonging to British subjects. He used the
terra "British subjects," not in the sense of British
natural-born subjects, but as representing persons resi-
dent within the British dominions, and it was in that
sense only that the words "British merchant ships" .
were to be interpreted in the treaty of 1842. Now it
was abundantly plain from the 17th article of that treaty,
that if the Arrow answered certain conditions she was
for all the purposes of the treaty entitled to the protec-
tion which by the treaty was guaranteed to a British
ship. These conditions she did answer, and he might
remark that it was a great mistake to suppose that colo-
nial registration was forbidden by the Imperial legisla-
ture. An imperial register, which entitled a ship to
certain general privileges bad reference to its sailing
throughout the world, but the colonial register, as it
was called, was-a thing limited to the coasts of China,
imposing restrictions en vessels engaged in the coasting
trade as well as conferring privileges in order to prevent
smuggling. Those colonial registers were wholly inde-
pendent of the Imperial register, and only gave the ves-
sels limited privileges. It was not competent to the Chinese
authorities to deny any vessel which had received a re-
gister from Hong-Kong the character of a British ves-
sel. Consequently, all the arguments they had heard
about the expiry of the license was a matter about
which the Chinese had no concern at all and
were not entitled to avail themselves of. He would, in
the next place, consider the point dwelt upon with so
much gravity by the venerahle and noble 1 )rd in the other
house (Lord Lyndhurst). It was extraordinary, but
perfectly true, that he could frank all the propositions
for which that nobleman contended but leave the real
point of this case untouched, and found upon the same
proposition another argument totally consistent with it
to show that the Chinese were in the wrong. It was
true they could not convert a subject of one country into
the subject of another as against his own sovereign. He
had hiinself frequently had to enforce that principle. The
Alien Act, for instance, enabled them to grant general
letters of naturalisation to men of every nation, but it
did not destroy the tights of the sovereign of the parti-
cular country to the allegiance of its subjects. But that
was not the point. Nobody said that the Chinese owner
of the vessel was not answerable to his own sovereign.
The present inquiry was limited to whether a natural-
born subject of China becoming a resident at Hong
Kong, and so becoming in that sense a British colonia'
subject, they might not make him owner of a ship
and give him a register, by means of which, although
he himself would not be released from his allegiance
to the Emperor of China, the ship itself would have
the immunity conferred by the treaty. (Hear.) It was a
singular thing this case, on which so much reasoning
had been exhausted, had actually been decided in this
country in our law courts, and the proposition was
known to almost every writer on international law. Mr.
Wheaton's book had been cited with reference to a caEe in
which a proposition had been made to the authorities of
this country which exactly bore out the principle that he
contended for. The proposition was laid down there, and
deduced, not only from writers on international law, but
decided that the subject of another country cannot put off
his national character and so put an end to his natural a'-
legience as not to be answerable for acts done against his
own sovereign ; but that he might, by adoption or natu-
ralisation, enjoy all the privileges of another country ;
and a question had arisen in our courts. By laws for.
tnerly passed British subjects were prohibited from engag•
ing in certain trades ; but when they went to America
they were allowed to engage in them, and the case of
" Marshall and Dutton" had been decided on that prin-
ciple, the ruling being that the parties who contended for
the right were entitled to all the privileges conferred upon
the United States traders. The question came before the
Court of Error, and it was remarkable the noble and
learned lord was not aware of the answer given to the
reasoning of counsel on that which was a similar point
to it, whether a native of China could not, by residing in
Hong-Kong, become a British subject sufficiently to con-
fer upon a ship that he was owner of the privilege under
the treaty. Lord Stowell and other learned judges had
decided that a person residing in Stockholm, natu:alised,
and owner of a ship, was not entitled to claim for that
vessel the privil-ge granted to the vessel of a Swedish
subject (hear, from the opposition) ; but that decision
was deliberately overruled by the whole of the judges
in the Exchequer Chamber, who held that a foreigner
going to another country, and becoming domiciled there,
might become the the owner of a ship of that country,
so as to enable him to avail himself in his own native
country of all the privileges afforded to that ship.
(Cheers.) It was said that this particular Chinese was
sought to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of his sove-
reign. It was perfectly true that in a criminal sense he
could not be so withdrawn, but by national law and
municipal law a native of one country could reside in
another, and possess privileges other than those posses-
sed by his own countrymen, though he never could dis-
solve his natural allegiance to his sovereign. If the'ease
were at gued before the noble and learned lord, he would
admit, undoubtedly, that the proposition he (the Attor-
ney General) contended fer was correct. They forgot
that they had by the Merchant Shipping Act assumed
the right to do this, and said that a British ship might
be owned by a naturalised subject ; and if the arguments
of tile other side were wrong, that act would have been
incapable of being maintained according to the law of
nations. The whole thing, therefore, turned upon the
law. The argument elsewhere, conducted as it was
with learning, talent, elevation, and dignity, was ad-
dressed to him in vain, for, first, it was contended that
the whole matter depended upon the colonial ordinance,
was not forbidden by the Imperial acts of Parliament, and
that they could not consider that a ship belonging
to a native of China was a British vessel. Those
were the arguments used in the other house, but he
was sure that a calm perusal of the acts of Parliament
would not support the propositions contended for there.
(Cheers.) Was it not surpi i sing, nay, humiliating even
to hon, and right hon. gentlemen who were always so
eager to protect their absent friends—(s laugh)--that
they should denounce Sir John Bowring on a point on
which Lord Lyndhurst was opposed to Lord Wensley-
dale, and Lord St. Leouards and the Lord Chancellor
were directly contrary in their opinions ? Was it, sur-
prising that he should be protected by his friends here
for being ignorant on this subject, because, believing
that, he considered himself bound to protect the 1 e-eha
in question and to enforce the treaty. It was said
that the Government here should not have endorsed the
error of Sir J. Be wring. Sir J. Bowring having sent all
the despatches home, what was the duty of Lord Claren-
don ? The constitution of the country had provided the
Foreign Office with a proper legal adviser, selected for
his abilities and made a permanent officer. Lord Cla-
rendon laid all the papers before the Queen's Advocate,
a gentlemen of great ability, who was selected by Lord
Derby's Government, in order to obtain his advice ;
the opinion of the Queen's Advocate was conveyed in
'the despatch of the 10th of December, and poor Sir.
Bowring, who had been held up to reproach by those
who had assumed the right to criticise his conduct,
and had been cruelty attacked by his former familiar
acquaintances, expressed in his letter the very opinion
expressed by the legal adviser t 3 the Foreign Office,
who said correctly :—" The expiration of the Arrow's
sailing license on September 27, previous to her seizure
does not appear to have been known to the Chinese
authorities, and this again, as a matter of British regula-
tion, could not justify the Chinese." He (the Attorney.
General) had not the honour of any acquaintance with
Sir J. Bowring, but had seen many of his despatoties,
and thought him disposed greatly to "Celestialities"—(a,
laugh)—to maintain the just rights of China. It was said
that Sir J. Bowring wanted to gratify his ambition at
the expense of the Chinese, and Set lie had maintained
their rights in the case of Shangloae, and he wrote dis-
patches in their behalf. What was the proper meaning
of Sir J. Bowring's letter, that the Chinese did not know
of the expiration of the licence ? It was this—that the
) question was as to the existence of a malus animus in
the Chinese. If the Chinese had no mans rcei they would
have said that they had entered the vessel, believing it to
be Chinese. This was what was meant by Sir J. Bowring '
—i.e., that it was a mere afterthought on the part of the
Chinese that the vessel was not a British ship. The
"familiar acquaintance" of Sir J. Bowring might have
hit upon this easy and obvious explanation. That which
had followed bad been a just retribution upon wanton
insolence and outrage on the part of the Chinese. Sir J.
Bowring thought that this was the spirit of the Chinese,
and he (the Attorney-General) believed that he had been
right. He had caught the Chinese fiagrante delicto. He
had invited the Chinese to surrender their prisoners, but
was refused and resisted. This man Yeh had been made
remarkable for cruelty, and tried to put himself at the
head of a frantic populace and encourage brut .1 ou rage.
Humanity itself required prompt and decisive measures,
rethentban to submit to a course of insults which would
have resultedin a war like the last. It was idle to-talk
of humanity in war. (Oh !) He meant that though
the harshness of war might be mitigated, it must ever
remain cruel in its nature. The extent of the operatic)!
had been controlled by the gallant Admiral Seymour
whose characti r had been upheld even by the iight boo,
taronet (Sir J. Graham), This, then,
was the case ;
and what remained to be said ? He had tried to argue
the legal question. calmly, and to lay t e'ore the Louse all
the materials for a just judgment. It was a inistako to
suppose (he bad on witted to say) that there could be no
British ship not registered'. The law on that subject
was otherwise stated by "Abbott on shipping,"page
A ship might be legally owned by a British subject
though not registered, nor a British ship within the navi-
gation laws. He wished further to remark on the re-
spect due to the British flag altogether apart from the
question of legality or of registry. There was a differ-
ence between a ship having originally obtained papers