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

according to strict international law. Ho now came to
a part of the case, which he thought had called forth re-
marks a great deal too strong—he meant the letters ie
which Sir J. Bowring referred to the fact of the expiry
of the register. He should assume for the present that
the view ho hid stated of international law was correct.
But 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 ou the 27th of Sept., from which
period she has not beau entitled to protection. You will
send back the register to be delivered to the Colonial-office.
But the Chinese bad no knowledge of the expiry of the
licence, nor do they profess that they had any other ground
for interference than the supposition that the owner is not
a British subject. That, however, is a question for this
Government, who granted the register, and it is clear that
the Chinese authorities have violated the 9th article of the
supplementary treaty, which requires that all Chinese m
1-
faisants in British ships shall be claimed through the Bri-
tish authorities."
The honourable member for the West Riding had 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 of indignation
which the remarks of the honourable member had ex-
cited against the letter. Perhaps, being a lawyer, he
might be accused of sharp practice ; but, 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 should be ashamed
of himself if he declined to state frankly what his impre--
sion of the letter was. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Bowring
said that, "the Chinese had 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 our flag they in-
tended to insult us—(ironical cheers from the Opposition)
—and that it made no difference as far as the insult was
concerned, whether the register bad expired or not.
(Cries of " Oh, oh !" and cheers) Would any hon-
ourable and learned member venture to say that it
was not a principle of international law that if a man
committed an outrage upon another without a kno s-
ledge of facts which might justify it he was liable to
reprisals as if those facts had no existence ? Take the
case which he put a while ago. Ho 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 been
alleged that, unknown to the Chinese, the liberty of
carryiag 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 insulting
the British flag. He quite agreed too with Sir J. Bow-
ring, that it rested with the, Government which had
granted the register to determine whether or not the
register remained 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 3 that the Fcence 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 nut
know at the time that the licence had expired, and if
they had known it it was a matterfor 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 lorcha, yet, if
there was a deliberate 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,
All• 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 had been 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
practicel 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 !) He 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 inure important in the
times and circumstances of the affair than the mere se.z-
ing of a lorcha. Ths noble lord the member for London
stated on the previous evening that tle 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 re
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 I 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 all 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 hand. The Chinese
mandarins aro pretty much like their own long bamboos.
If one can but manage to get hold of them iu 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
issue by the apparent smallness of the commencement ;
and this was not the first war in the East wllich had
had its origin in small beginnings. He remembered a
war which did not turn out of very long duration, but
which was very glorious, as wars were called, which
brought great honour to those who conducted it, and a
great accession of territory to this country—he alluded
to the late war in Burmab, which owed its origin
to a loss of 9001. which had been sustained by a Bri-
tish merchant. A noble lord in another place, having
commented upon the trifling nature of the circumstance
which Lad given rise to that war, was thus answered by
the Earl of Derby in 1853 :
" Ho bad no hesitation in entering into an examinaCea
of the representations. which his noble friend the Governor
General had seat home of the necessity of his first proceed-
inffs in sanctioning the course which he felt it necessary to
adopt, and in coming to the conclusion that, reluctantly
as he had been compelled to undertake hostile operations
against Ave, the amount of insult, if not the extent of the
individual injury done to British subjects, was such that,
if it were felt necessary to maintain the prestige of tho 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 frien t 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 9001. that we had
been compelled to demand of the Governor of Rangoon
first, and of the King of Ave afterwards, a thorough in-
demnification and reparation for the insult and injury
which had been inflicted upon a British subject; but it was
because, from the year 1826, a succession of insults and
encroachments had gradually deprived us of all the bene-
fits which had rasulted from the last war with Bormah,
and driven our Minister from the post which he had been
directed to hold, had gradually deprived us of all the pri-
vileges to which we wore entitled, and had succeeded iii
thwarting the operations of our commerce—because each
successive insult had been tamely acquiesced in, perhaps
efrooemtienheecaesestliteye,eb.eyiethl.ieefGthoverinemitiernitesoafutdheincelauylt;
withwieahshtande
to pass them over.Withoutodniscthuess
at length made it incumbent Governor-General
this
particular case, he did not hesitate to say, that when the
th
papers
assertion produced they
y as the Governor-General
had had recourse to hostilities, it was
impossible for him to
have avoided them, and
havina
entered
vigorgusly erwnerpdo% them,
that,
them
it was necessary to carry
,fin said Lord Derby on the Burmese war. (Cheers.) He
(the Lord Advocate) did notatand thefreiotookjustifyt theth o
wariwhich we had undertaken undera
uhciricluomns.tgaennctels
ne,-
i
n pct oh nyvtehnidchedeafocrh thecas necessity
surrounded.
o
eared to be quite enamoured and enchanted with
i bute
facts be
we p
Chinese composition. No doubt in composition they
excelled, and, if they were only as trustworthy in nego-
tiation and as true in action as they were elegant in
penmanship, 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
despatches to Sir John Bowring, he was exciting his I
own populace against the British in order to provide a
pretence for refusing to admit our ambassador. 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
At 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 he had exaggerated the difficulty of dealing
with the people under his control, still unquestionably
some difficulty did exist. As an instance of the e eakness
of the Government Commissioner Keying in 1844 said :
—" We cannot let you into Canton just 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 commissioners had
some difficulty to contend against in governing the Chi-
' nese people, but in dealing with nations of that deec:ip-
tion, nations which *era not always able to fulfil their
obligations, it was necessary to take 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 "Hoar, 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 waa 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 1
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. Bowring was only doing what he was
allowed by treaty to do, and therefore he had not done
anything to deserve the censure which it was now pro-
posed to pass upon his conduct. He had been driven to
tre4pass 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 be 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 be could not find in the papers
before the house anything like the sufferings described,
nor was he disposed to ascent 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 I") 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 .1 not make it legal. And if the right of issuing
ord'ainces were legal, still 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 not 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 approved 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 I Were they a ware 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 ? 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 first 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 ?Ir. 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 to insist on free ac-
Can 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 (Hr.
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 told 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 wera vexing our coasts
would not we offer a reward for their heads He could
not understand the argument that bad 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 pr )ceedlngi on the
Continent, while in the East our conduct bad inspired
the nations there with a horror of our approach. It was
tune 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 fir 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 ho could not under-
stand how that licence could have txpired until her re-
turn to the port from which she had sailed. It was said

the Chinese did not know that the Arrow was a British,

vessel. He did not care whether they knew it or not ;
the British flag was flying and they hauled it down.

What was de-manded I They were only asked to
send back the men in the same public manner in
whic'l they had taken them away, not to send them back
in a sneaking trivet° way—and to wake 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. When France wss at war with Mexico the .FreLch
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-
tion and the admiral were very ill thought of for not re-
senting this in a most positive manner. Had he (Sir C.
Napier) been there he should have insisted upon Prince
Joinville going on board the very mend 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- 1
quences. Ile (Sir C Napier) would most certainly have
sent him to England. In the pressnt case. supposing that
Sir Michael Seymour, knowing that the English flag had
been hauled down and insulted, had taken no ns,tice of
the matter, would not the papers have been full of the
insult, and would not Admiral Seymour have been Be-
vels ly condemned for not avenging it ? lion, gentlemen
on both sides of the house would have said that he had
not done his duty, that he had no spirit, and ought to be
recalled ; and he (Sir C. Napier) verily believed that he
would have been recalled. They blamed Sir J. Bowring,
but they did not blame Sir M. Seymour; but if Sir J.
Bowring was to blame, 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. B.)w-
ring was doing wrong it was his duty to refuse to obey
any orders from him. It might have been better to have
seized a war junk, and keptit until reparation wee 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 would have said, " What 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 roust
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 the fault 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 westld have gone
to the extent he had it he cou'd ro sibly 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, upon whom he believed the whole guilt of
these proceedings ought to be cast. He had a high re-
spect fer the honour of his country's flag, and tiser,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 houee affirming it would be
to complicate matters in China still more than they were
at present, and would endanger British life and property
in China. On that ground, therefore he must decline
to support the resolution. But he had another motive.
He was most anxious to see a purely Ccouseryative Go-

vernmetst in power, but he would never while he bell a 1
seat in the house vote for a resolution which by remov-
ing the present Government would make way for the
Conservatives, in conjunction with tht,sc right hon. gen-
tLmen who had been concerned in the anti-PretestArit
and democratic movements (the Peelites and AlancheAer
men) of the last few years.
Admiral BERKELEY (te whom Sir J. Graha'm gave
way by order of tie 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 c f an absent
servant of the Crown, and whose proceedings he
(Admiral Berkeley) felt called upon to vindicate. Sir M.
Seymour had never fired a shut 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 ever
there was a man fitted to command it was Sir M. Sey-
mour. He was not only a great commander but a good
Christian. The gallant admiral had been charged with
refusing to light on a Sunday, and he (Admiral Berke-
ley) certainly felt that that was not a day for fighting,
but that was not his only reason. He 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 ha 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.
With 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. Ho 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 had 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 be 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
anxiouly 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 entrde 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 thatthis
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, be might venture
upon this business. The last despatch in 1849, written
by the noble lord, was not so peiceful in its spirit as any
of the preceding letters on the subject. He foetid in that
despatch these words :—" The Itritish Government well
knows that if occasion requires a British mil tary force
would be able to destroy the town of Canton, and not
leaFei one single house standing,. and could 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 ough.: to be arrested. He
had hoard with pleasure that there had been a protest
against it in Canton by Russell and Co. There had 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 miseralla 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 . ith justice ? In entering upon that
question he must beg very respectfully to state that he
differed from those opinions which had been delivered
with so much eloquence by noble and lerrned lords in
another plac i upon a previous evening. Of those opi-
nions he would present to the house a short analysis, for
great as was his raepect for the assembly which he had
the honour to address, yet he could not compare its de-
liberations, in connection with the subject under discus-
sion, or the arguments which had 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 he should-
not have failed in disposing of those wbich had been ad-
vanced in the House of Commons. (Hear.) The argu-
ments to which he 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 were granted that
the colonial ordinance was of force, it could not exempt
the Arrow, being Chino-e property, from the authority
and jurisdiction of the Emperor of China.
.Now, he was
desirous to lay before the house that which he con-
ceived to be in reality the law in reference to those three
prop isitions ; and he might, before proceeding to do so,
be permitted to remark that in hie 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 or non-validity of the col ,vial
ordinance—a circumstance which in point of fact was
wholly immaterial to the d :cision at a hich they ought t•
arrive. The 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 be thought
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 the Thames, might under circumstances such as those
which had occurred at Canton, been visited by the au-
thorities of this country, and that any offender against
our municipal law who might happen to have been on
board, neieht be seized and taken away. The noble and
learned lord might have known that but for the treaty of
1842, the Arrow, or :lay other ship in the river of Can
ton would, in accordance with the principles of general
international law, have been liable to be visited by the
Chinese authorities, but 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 belonged-_a class of ves:els which by sti-
puletions made between England and China were, for
the purpose or local and coa t ng commerce to receive
a special protection and, as it were, to be naturalised.
The words of the 17:h article of the treaty were,
"That every British schooner or lorcha shall have sail-
ing orders prepared and registered in Chinese and Eng-
lish under the Feel and iienatura of the Chief Superin-
tendent of Trade," See. Now every lorcha which 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 nothing but
a municipal regulation, which for municipal purposes
had been superadded to the general international low.
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
with :n 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