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

a violation of contract, and was fully entitled to the pro-
tection of the British consul. Bat it had been urged
that the sailing licence of the Arrow had not been in
conformity with the colonial ordinance. He, howevcr,
must say, with great Submission to the noble and learned
lord by whom that statement had been made—and be
said so with the more confidence because be was for

iu his opinion by the authority of one who was better
versed in the principles of international law than, pet-
haps, any other man in England—he must say that the
colonial ordinance, being a matter of international la',
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 statute:3 by the turn
"British ship." (Hear.) That term, in the sense

in which it appeared in the statutes in question, bad been
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 not 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
term "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 pisin 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 erste-
nial registration was forbidden by the Imperial legisla-
ture. An imperial register, which entitled a ship to
certain general privileges had 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 on 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 bad 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 bad no concern at all and
were not entitled to avail themselves of. Re would, in
the next place, consider the point dwelt upon with so
much gravity by the venerable and noble lord 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 himself 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 rights 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, aid so becoming in that sense a British colonial
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 al-
legiance 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-
merly 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, naturalised,
and owner of a ship, Was nut entitled to claim fur that
vessel the privilege 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 affuried 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 case
were argued before the noble and learned lord, he would
admit, undoubtedly, that the proposition he (the Attor-
ney General) contended for 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 the 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 surprising, nay, humiliating even
to hon. and right hoe, gentlemen who were always .so
eager to protect their absent friends—(a laugh) —that
they should denounce Sir John Bowring on a point on
which Lord Lyndhurst was opposed to Lord Wensley-
dale, and Lord St. Leopards 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 lorcha
in question and to enforce the treaty. It was said
that the Government here should not have endorsed the
' error of Sir J. Bowring. Sir J. Bowring having sent all
the despatches home, what was the duty of Lord Cl tren-
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 convoyed in
'the despatch of the 10th of December, and poor Sir
I. Bowling, who had been held up to reproach by those
who had assumed the right to criticise his conduct,
and had been crutliy attacked by his former familiar
acquaintances, expressed in his letter the very opinioa
expressed by the legal adviser to 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 tee Chinese." He (the Attorney.
General) had not the honour of any acquaintance with.
Sir J. Bowring, but had seen many of his despatezics,
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 yet he bad maintained
their rights in the ease of Stianghae, and he wrote dis-
patohes in their behalf. What was the proper meaning
of Sir J. Bowring's latter, that the Chinese did not know
of the expiration of the licence ? It was this—that the
question was as to the ex;etence of a malus anitnus in
the Chinese. If the Chinese had no mens rcei they would
have said that they haantered 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 be had been
right. He had caught the Chinese Sagrante delicto. He
had invited the Chinese to surrender their prisocers, but
was refused and resisted. This man Yell had been made
remarkable for cruelty, and tried to put himself at the
head of a frantic populace and encourage brut d ou rage.
Humanity itself required prompt and decisive measures,
rather than 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 operation a
had been controlled' by the gallant Admiral Seymour ,
whose character bad been upheld even by the tight hon.
baronet (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 Ogre the I ouse all
the „materials for a just judgment. It was a mistake to
suppose (he had ommitted to say) that there could be no
British ship not registered. The law on that sul ject
was other wise stated by "Abbott on ehipping,"page 83.
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