in the House of Commons, an appeal from that sentence to the judgment of the nation, and the election of a new Parliament, were the consequences that arose from a dispute between Dr. Bowring, the Governor of Hong Kong, and the Commissioner of the Chinese Government at Canton These proceedings, and the Parliamentary struggles which they involved, excited the keen feelings of English politicians, until those emotions were absorbed, and, indeed, almost forgotten, in the far more deep and painful interest which but a few months afterwards was created by the tragical occurrences in India. The accounts of the collision at Canton between Commissioner Yeh and the British authorities, of which some notice will be found in another part of this volume, had reached England shortly before the end of the recess, and the conduct pursued by the British representative at Hong Kong had given rise, from its first announcement, to much diversity of opinion. Some persons regarded the measures taken against Canton as a just retribution for the insolent bearing and outrageous conduct of the Chinese authorities, while others censured the measures of Dr. Bowring, and considered that the acts of retaliation on our side were indefensible on the grounds of humnity and justice. The question

one which must of course be referred to the judgment of Parliament, and it was anticipated that a full discussion of the transactions in China would be one of the earliest occupations of the new session. This expectation was realised not only by the allusions to the subject in the Royal Speech and the strong comments made

upon it by several speakers in both Houses in the debate on the Address, but still more distinctly by a notice given by the Earl of Derby on the 16th of February, that as soon as the papers relating to Canton were laid on the table of the House, he should call the attention of their Lordships to the subject, and bring forward a specific motion in reference to it. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Cobden gave a nearly similar notice of a resolution to be proposed by him in the House of Commons.

Lord Derby's motion, which was ultimately fixed for the 24th of February, was the first to come on, the debate upon Mr. Cobden's resolution commenced in the other House on the 26th. In both Houses, as will be seen, the discussion was both warm and protracted, marked by great ability, but terminating in a different result. The debate in the Lords excited great admiration for the brilliant display of talent, eloquence, and research exhibited by the principal speakers. The Earl of Derby commenced a speech worthy of his oratorical fame by calling upon the House to remember that they were the highest judicial assembly in the world, and inviting them to consider the subject he brought under their notice in a judicial and impartial spirit. They were aware that proceedings of a most violent character had occurred at Canton, which had paralyzed trade and inflicted injury upon the merchants of both nations. The question to be decided was whether the cause justified those events. The first and chief point to be decided was whether the lorcha called the Arrow was a British vessel within the meaning of the treaty, and legally entitled to carry the British

flag. He contended that she was a China-built ship, captured by pirates, recaptured by the Chinese, sold afterwards by the Chinese, and ultimately bought, owned, and manned by Chinese; and this, he said derisively, was a British merchantman! It was an essential characteristic of a British merchant ship, that she must be wholly owned by British subjects-that was, by natural-born subjects or those that had become subjects by naturalization. The conditions under which the Colonial Legislature might, in pursuance of the power granted by the Imperial Legislature, pass the ordinance had not been complied with; it had not been approved by any Order in Council, and was therefore worth no more than waste paper. The Arrow therefore was not a British vessel, and, even if a British vessel, no infraction of the treaty had been committed. No one would think of enforcing such an ordinance in the case of the vessels of any European country trading on the coast of that country, and it was inconsistent with the rights appertaining to any independent country to absolve these Chinese from their allegiance, and give them liberty to trade where they pleased under the protection of the British flag. The very existence of the colonial ordinance had not, although it was an alteration of the existing treaty with the Chinese authorities, been communicated to them until some time after it was established, and then only upon the seizure of two vessels engaged in smuggling salt. The noble Lord then proceeded to contend that, whatever doubt there might be as to whether the flag was flying in the Arrow at the time of the seizure of the crew,

there could be no doubt that the Arrow had no legal right to carry that flag, and in support of that view he adduced two statements of Sir J. Bowring allowing that the licence had expired before the seizure. The conduct of Sir J. Bowring in admitting that the Arrow could not claim British protection, to Consul Parkes, and making a directly contrary statement to Commissioner Yeh, was not a specimen of that straightforwardness which should always characterise the dealings of British officials, and it was the more deplorable when it was considered that this country had been drawn into a destructive and expensive war by such means. Passing on to the claim of British subjects to free admission into the city of Canton, he admitted that the treaty of 1846 conferred that right; and, although it had been entered into under considerable duresse on the part of the Chinese authorities, he had no doubt that throughout this part of the transaction our Plenipotentiary had taken a correct view, while the Chinese officers had been altogether in error. The only question that could arise was as to the policy of pressing the right at that particular moment. The noble Earl read a variety of extracts from the papers to show that in 1848 the Government, upon the authority of Sir G. Bonham, came to the conclusion that it was not expedient to press the claim for admission to Canton, and quoted a proclamation, issued by Sir George in 1849, prohibiting British subjects from entering that city. He argued that the reason assigned by the Chinese authorities for refusing admission had always been the same-a fear

of collision between the natives and the English, and that such reason was not a mere pretext, but was shared by Sir G. Bonham himself. A new actor, he said, now appeared upon the stage in the person of Sir John Bowring, who was possessed with a monomania on the subject of his own admission to Canton, and who would not consider any sacrifice too great to effect that object. While the Chinese authorities were always looking forward to a more favourable season, which never arrived, there were no possible circumstances or combination of circumstances which, to the mind of Sir J. Bowring, did not, appear peculiarly favourable to the agitation of this question. Even the failure of the American Minister and of our own Consul to attain a similar object seemed to him to offer the best auguries for his own success. Apart from the merits of the question, there was much reason to complain of the manner in which this correspondence had been conducted by the British officials; while the tone of the Chinese was throughout forbearing, courteous, and gentlemanlike, that of our representative was, with hardly an exception, menacing, disrespectful, and arrogant. This condemnation Lord Derby admitted to be severe, but he supported it by numerous references to the correspondence, He concurred in the opinion of Commissioner Yeh that Sir J. Bowring and Consul Parkes had determined beforehand that they would not consent to anything proposed, but would tack to the lorcha grievance Sir J. Bowring's monomania for obtaining admission to the city. He proved by extracts from the reports that the

operations were advised and planned by Consul Parkes within twelve days of the cause of quarrel; that every overture for peace by the Chinese was evaded, and that at a very early period after hostilities commenced, the desire to settle the long-vexed question of access was avowed. When Sir John Bowring charged the Chinese with shameful violations of treaties, it should not be forgotten that those treaties remained unfulfilled with the full acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government, upon reasons assigned and representations made. Want of courtesy towards the Chinese Commissioner was, therefore, unjustifiable. The conduct of Sir J. Bowring had been governed by one absorbing idea-viz., his own official reception into Canton, in which the original cause of complaint respecting the Arrow was speedily lost. In an eloquent peroration he addressed a solemn appeal to the bench of Bishops to come forward on this occasion and vindicate the cause of religion, humanity, and civilisation from the outrage which had been inflicted upon it by the British representatives in Canton. He should be disappointed indeed if the right rev. Bench did not respond to this appeal; but in any case he turned with undiminished confidence to the hereditary peers, and called upon them not to tolerate the usurpation by authorities abroad of that most awful prerogative of the Crown, the right of declaring war-not to tolerate upon light and trivial grounds the capture of commercial vessels, the destruction of forts belonging to a friendly country, the bombardment of an undefended city, and the shedding of the blood of

unwarlike and innocent people without warrant of law and without moral justification. The noble Earl concluded by moving the condemnatory resolution of which he had given notice, which was in the terms following:

"That this House has heard with deep regret of the interruption of amicable relations between Her Majesty's subjects and the Chinese authorities at Canton, arising out of the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Chief Superintendent of Trade to obtain reparation for alleged infractions of the supplementary treaty of the 8th of October 1843.

"That, in the opinion of this House, the occurrence of differences on this subject rendered the time peculiarly unfavourable for pressing on the Chinese

authorities a claim for the admittance of British subjects into Canton which had been left in abeyance since 1849, and for supporting the same by force of arms. "That, in the opinion of this House, operations of actual hostility ought not to have been undertaken without the express instructions, previously received, of Her Majesty's Government; and that neither of the subjects adverted to in the foregoing resolutions afforded sufficient justification for such operations."

The Earl of Clarendon felt equal confidence with that expressed by Lord Derby at the close of his speech, that their Lordships would lay aside all party considerations, and see the necessity of upholding the servants of the Crown when they were in the right, as in his conscience he believed they were. Lord Derby had described the relations between England and China as hav

ing been amicable previous to the late rupture. This, however, was a misdescription. The Chinese had long sought to violate British rights acquired by treaty, and every resident in Canton, no matter to what nation he belonged, had long felt the present state of things to be intolerable. With regard to the case of the Arrow, a principle was involved in it, and the British authorities in Canton could not have acted otherwise. The ordinance under which the Arrow had hoisted the British flag was not the ordinance to which Lord Derby had referred, and it contravened no existing .British law. The granting of licences to ships the property of persons not British-born was not confined to China, but obtained in Malta, Gibraltar, and Singapore, and there could be no doubt that granting such licenses was perfectly legal. The Arrow had not forfeited her license, because, although the term had expired, the vessel was still at sea, and therefore still entitled under the terms of the ordinance to bear the British flag. As to the outrage which had been committed by the Chinese, no doubt existed, and under the circumstances, if Mr. Parkes, whose discretion and moderation deserved all praise, had shrunk from demanding redress, he would have failed in his duty, and have given the Chinese reason to believe that they might proceed to still greater insult. He contrasted the case of the Arrow with that of a French or American vessel arriving off Liverpool or the Channel Islands under the like circumstances, and asked what would be thought of British authorities if they had acted as the Chinese had done throughout