this transaction. But such an event could not occur among nations who respected international law; and because the Chinese were not guided by considerations of that high character it was necessary to make them sensible of the law of force. He believed that the supposed feeling of the people of Canton against the admission of foreigners was a mere bugbear; but, even were it not, that was no reason why we should not call upon the authorities to maintain order and to be responsible for British life and property. He

then described the various measures which had been adopted in vain to induce the Chinese authorities to fulfil their treaty engagements and admit British subjects into Canton, and declared that Her Majesty's Government would have permitted the question to remain in the position in which it was left by their predecessors, if the affair of the Arrow had been satisfactorily arranged. At the same time they fully recognised the importance of the entry into Canton, and believed that the Queen's officers were justified in taking advantage of the dispute about the Arrow to endeavour to procure a partial fulfilment of the treaty. With regard to the motion, he asserted that the third resolution, as it now stood, could only be considered by Her Majesty's officers throughout the world as a positive prohibition against engaging in offensive operations; and declared that such a prohibition would endanger the lives and property of all British subjects in China, would cast dishonour upon our name and our flag, and would bring ruin upon our trade with that country.

Lord Lyndhurst had carefully perused the papers upon the table, VOL. XCIX.

and had come to the conclusion that the proceedings out of which this unfortunate dispute arose could not be justified upon any principles either of law or of reason. As it could not be pretended that the Chinese were to inform the British authorities before seizing a culprit on board a Chinese ship, the whole point turned on the question, was the Arrow a British ship? He denied that it was a British ship, and further demonstrated, by the illustration of certificates of naturalization not being accepted on the Continent, that, even if clothed with the privileges of a British ship, as against ourselves, no law, ordinance, or register could give those privileges as against foreigners.

It was evident that Sir J. Bowring had acted throughout upon one fixed idea-viz. his own official reception into Canton, as immediately after the rupture he lost sight of the case of the Arrow, and confined himself solely to demanding the fulfilment of the terms of the treaty of 1842. The course of violence, however, which he had taken was the least likely to lead to that freer and more friendly intercourse which it was his desire to obtain, and thus, by adopting it, he had defeated his own wishes. He contended it was clear that from the very first moment at which Sir J. Bowring was appointed to his present office his great ambition was to procure an entrance for English traders within the walls of Canton, in spite of the failure of all his predecessors to accomplish that object, and to this were to be attributed all the deplorable results that had ensued. He heartily concurred in the sentiments expressed by his noble friend (Lord Derby), and would cordially support his motion.

[E]

The Lord Chancellor complained that Lord Derby and Lord Lyndhurst had both assumed what he denied was the fact, that the Chinese authorities had given no occasion for complaint. The question was, whether, there being a treaty by which the Chinese were bound not to seize suspected criminals on board English ships, without the intervention of the British Consuls, the Chinese authorities had a right to board the Arrow and take away the crew. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the British flag was flying at the time, and therefore as between us and China this was a British ship. The Chinese might have complained, if they had thought fit, that a register had been improperly granted, but they had no right whatever, according to international law, to board the Arrow, and thus themselves to decide the question of its nationality. There could be no doubt that the Arrow enjoyed a licence which it was within the prerogative of the Crown to grant, and that an outrage had been committed. He himself had not risen to enter into the details of that outrage, but rather with the view of impressing upon their Lordships that if an insult was offered to the British flag which the British authorities could not overlook without loss of character, the evil which might happen ought to be attributed to those who offered the insult, and not to the British authorities, at home or abroad.

Earl Grey wished to distinctly assert that the dispatch which he had sent to Hong Kong in 1847 did not apply to that period alone, but was meant to apply to all time. He could not conceive any doctrine more dangerous than that subordi

nate officers, who might not be persons of easy temper, might be allowed to resort to offensive measures without reference to the home Government. The navigation laws clearly set forth what were British ships, but those laws in the case of China were modified by the treaty; and it was important to inquire whether the Arrow was a British ship in the full intent and meaning of the term. He maintained that the Arrow was not a British vessel in any sense of the term, and such, from first to last, had been the argument of the Chinese. Our policy with regard to China ought to have been one of conciliation. That policy, so long as it was pursued, was crowned with success, and had it been persevered in we might have anticipated from it the best results. He dwelt on the scandal to Christianity, the sufferings of the innocent Chinese, and the injury to ourselves, which must inevitably follow proceedings which he designated as inhuman. He reproved the Government for adopting the acts of Sir John Bowring, and expressed a hope that one result of the resolution being carried would be his immediate recall. Appealing to their Lordships as Christians, who felt that the precepts of their faith bound nations as well as individuals, he charged them not to become responsible for the blood already shed, but to save themselves by voting for the resolution of Lord Derby.

The Earl of Carnarvon pointed out the injustice committed by this country in enforcing the principles of international law, when those laws applied in our own favour, and refusing to recognise them when their application justified the conduct of the Chinese. This had been the case in the question of

allegiance. While this country claimed that no employment in a foreign country, no matter how long its duration, could weaken the allegiance of a British subject to his Sovereign, we expected to relieve Chinese shipping and their crews from the operation of their own laws by a mere letter of British registry. But, after all, this register, for which so much was claimed in the case of the Arrow, was a mere imposture-it did not exist at the time. What, he would ask, under the same circumstances as in China, would be the course pursued by any of our Consuls at a French port? If it had been similar, would this Government have supported such an officer? On every principle of justice and humanity he begged their Lordships to disavow the acts committed at Canton, which were as much at variance with the principles of Christianity, as with those of either a sound or a safe policy. After a few observations from Lord Methuen,

Lord St. Leonards reviewed generally the operation of the supplementary treaty of 1843. The Merchant Shipping Act, it was contended by the Government, legalized the provisions of the colonial ordinance; but, in truth, the latter law was in force some time before the Merchant Shipping Act was passed. It was supposed that the ordinance gave to any persons who took a certificate of registry all the powers and privileges which pertained to British ships. But this was to claim for the colonial ordinance a power to alter the established laws of England, and he, as a constitutional lawyer, would say that for such purpose it was of no more value than waste paper. He contended

that the ordinance never claimed to give the privileges of British ships, but merely the right of trading backwards and forwards between Hong Kong and China; so that that law of which they had heard so much was in reality beside the question. He reviewed the arguments used by Lord Clarendon in support of the Government, and showed that from that Minister's speech the certificate was admitted to be no British register after all, so that we were actually forcing a cruel war on an inoffensive nation on behalf of a so-called British ship without a British register. He thought the law laid down by the Lord Chancellor, when he spoke on the same question, was equally wrong, and, in fact, at entire variance with the admitted law of nations. He contrasted the conduct of the Government towards the Chinese and that which they had pursued towards Russia. Every military consideration called for the destruction of Odessa; every sentiment of humanity and justice appealed to them to spare Canton. He did not consider the motion made as a party question, but really to decide whether the country was prepared to continue and press forward a war unjustly and unwisely entered on.

The Lord Chancellor briefly denied that in the course of the debate he had advanced anything contrary to the law of nations or calculated to mislead the members of their Lordships' House upon the legal bearings of the question at issue between the Government and the authorities at Canton.

Lord Wensleydale thought that all members of their Lordships' House would concur with the first part of the motion, which regretted

the termination of our amicable relations with the Chinese. With reference to the latter paragraph, that hostilities should not have been undertaken without express instructions received from Her Majesty's Government, he could not at all agree. The distance was too remote to permit a course so dilatory at such a crisis. The authorities at Canton had violated not only the existing treaties with this country, but the commonest safeguards of international law, and had drawn down upon themselves a punishment which was not only merited but necessary. He considered that the colonial ordinance was perfectly legal, though, even if its legality could not be established in a court of justice, the Chinese at least had no right to dispute its validity by capturing an English vessel and insulting the English flag.

The Earl of Malmesbury thought the question was one both of policy and morality. Sir J. Bowring actually admitted the vessel had no right to the British protection or the British flag. That flaw in the indictment, if he might so term it, Sir John Bowring had, however, concealed not only from the Chinese, but, as he (Lord Malmesbury) believed, from Sir Michael Seymour, for that officer had spoken of bombarding the town, in consequence of the Chinese refusing to make reparation for this insult to the English flag. Could he, as an officer and a gentleman, have so written if he was aware of the fact that the Arrow had no right to carry the British flag, and had no claim on the British protection? He confessed he was by no means satisfied with the explanations given by Lord Wensleydale as to the legality

of their proceedings; but, admitting all his arguments, and granting that the lorcha was British from stem to stern, it was still no excuse for the horrible proceedings which had been adopted at Canton. He admitted the importance of party ties and the beneficial influence which they exercised over Parliamentary government, but there were questions of conscience which were above all party considerations. This was one, and he trusted that their Lordships would decide for the cause of truth and justice, and support the motion of Lord Derby.

The Duke of Argyll vindicated the conduct of the Government.

The Earl of Albemarle explained the peculiar difference between lorchas and junks, with the Chinese maritime laws relating to each, for the purpose of showing that Commissioner Yeh must have been aware of those laws, and have acted in defiance of them, well knowing that the Arrow was British. Our claim for admission to Canton was both just and reasonable, and absolutely necessary to regulate the interests of the extensive commercial relations between the countries. But at the same time he was by no means in favour of the suggestion for a resident Envoy at Pekin, and he hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would not for an instant entertain such an idea. All attempts to establish regular diplomatic relations with the Chinese had signally failed, with more or less of ignominy, both with the Portuguese, the Dutch, and ourselves. He trusted that the Government would give a distinct denial to the report which stated that they were about to renew their ef forts, and send an Envoy to Pekin.

The Earl of Ellenborough

thought, in the present instance, the conduct of this country towards the Chinese was unjustifiable. He firmly believed that the insult to our flag, such as it was, was not intended; and, if their Lordships believed that such was the case, did they not feel that a light offence had been heavily atoned? The Chinese people had been alienated, their forts overturned, fire and sword carried into the bosom of a peaceful city. Was not that enough to satisfy the offended dignity of this country, to appease even Dr. Bowring? On Dr. Bowring a fearful responsibility rested; that responsibility was now accepted by the Government; but he entreated their Lordships' House not to share it. There would be no peace for China while Dr. Bowring remained near Canton, and he ought to be recalled, were it only for his having stated, with regard to the Arrow, that which, when he stated it, he believed to be untrue. The losses which would result to this country and India from this war of Dr. Bowring's it was almost impossible to estimate. Already a penny of the income tax was gone in the falling off of the duty on tea, and the deficiency would not stop at that. All our influence in China would be overturned-our efforts towards the conversion of the people entirely neutralized. How, indeed, could we attempt to teach them a religion of benevolence and humanity when our Minister was breaking the Commandmentscommitting murder in an unjust war-not telling the truth of his neighbour, and gratifying his covetousness at the expense of the sufferings of mankind? He hoped the decision of their Lordships' House would protect them from an

act like this-an act which was at once a folly and a crime.

Earl Granville earnestly deprecated the tone adopted by the last speaker as most unjust to a useful public servant, and unworthy the dignity of a grave and most serious discussion. His Lordship then proceeded to review the whole question of the seizure of the Arrow, with the circumstances attending it, showing that the English flag was flying at the time she was taken, and was hauled down by the Chinese, and illustrating by many instances the impossibility of depending upon the truth of a single circumstance in the version put forth by the authorities at Canton. The very able argument of his noble and learned friend (Lord Wensleydale) had shown the legality of the certificate of registry in the most conclusive manner. The conduct of Sir John Bowring had been guided throughout by the strict law of the colonial ordinance and the supplementary treaty of 1843. Had he acted otherwise, or by other rules, what would then have been said? Would not the Government have been charged with following the principles of the Manchester school, and preferring the paltry interests of commerce to the honour of the British flag? He most utterly denied the assertion made that night that Sir John Bowring received practical reparation when the twelve men were sent back to him. In fact, the whole of Sir John Bowring's proceedings were said to have been actuated by his monomania to be received in Canton as English Minister, though those who urged that charge quite forgot that it was the motive which had actuated most of our public servants acquainted with the East, and even his noble friend (Earl