L<-,- ^.; 
 
 
 
 <: c <R 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 5 < <y< 
 
 
 
 ws&^m 
 
 
 gj- <.C .'('.'.- (v*' 
 
 
 
 // 
 
 mw 

 
 WAE IF CHIFAs 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ET. HON. W. E, GLADSTOJ^E, M.P. 
 
 MARCH 3rd, 1857. 
 
 CORRECTED REPORT. 
 
 LONDON : 
 RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. 
 
 1857.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 C. ROWORTH AND SONS, PRINTERS, 
 
 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR.
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 4-c. 
 
 I RISE, Sir, to answer, in the first place, the appeal 
 made to me by the honourable and learned mem- 
 ber for Hertford, with regard to the appointment 
 of Sir John Bowring. That appeal, so far as I 
 am concerned, was very naturally and justly 
 made by him, because he was misled by the higher 
 authority of the speech of the right honourable 
 gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department. I complain of that speech in 
 respect, not of accuracy only, but of justice, in 
 so far as the appointment of Sir J. Bowring is 
 concerned. I presume, first, to complain on be- 
 half of the noble lord the member for the city of 
 London ; for in order to make him responsible for 
 the appointment of Sir J. Bowring to high political 
 and diplomatic position it was requisite to show 
 more than the mere fact that my noble friend had 
 considered him fit, from his commercial know- 
 ledge and his undoubted zeal and ability, to 
 discharge the subordinate duties of the consulate. 
 But I complain also on behalf of my right honour- 
 
 b2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 able friends near me and of myself, that a mis- 
 apprehension has been created by the Secretary 
 of State, who, if he did not know better, might 
 have known better, and ought to have known 
 better. The simple fact is, that neither my right 
 honourable friends near me nor myself were in 
 any manner parties to the appointment of Sir J. 
 Bowring, and that we learned it, like the rest 
 of the world, through the ordinary channels of 
 information. There is no doubt a sort of respon- 
 sibility which may attach to us inasmuch as we 
 were members of the Administration at the time, 
 but one of which I am sure the candour of the 
 honourable and learned member for Hertford will 
 lead him to see the just extent. That appoint- 
 ment was made, and I am far from saying it was 
 blameably so made, without the knowledge or 
 consent of the Cabinet. It is not the usasre, I 
 apprehend, to require the consent of the Cabinet 
 in cases of this class. The intention of Lord 
 Clarendon was made known to the head of the 
 Government, and it was by the head of the 
 Government allowed to pass with a declaration 
 that the consular services of Sir J. Bowring 
 would doubtless have given him a knowledge of 
 China which might be useful, — that he (Lord 
 Aberdeen) was not intimate with Dr. Bowring, 
 nor conversant with his career, but that he knew 
 Lord Clarendon to be both, and therefore he con- 
 sented. And now. Sir, as the name of Sir John 
 
 UIUC ,
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 Bowring must unfortunately recur from time to 
 time through the whole course of these discus- 
 sions, let me state that, as far as I am concerned, 
 T entirely disclaim and repudiate the description 
 which has been given by the honourable and 
 learned member for Hertford of the issue we are 
 now trying. He says that it is a judicial issue, — 
 that the case we are now trying is the individual 
 case of Sir J. Bowring, and that if a single doubt 
 hangs upon that case it is our duty to acquit our 
 representative in China. I protest. Sir, against 
 thus making Sir J. Bowring a stalking-horse to 
 divert our attention from the real matters that are 
 in issue. No doubt, the conduct of Sir J. Bow- 
 ring is involved in these discussions, but we are 
 not trying Sir J. Bowring judicially. It is our 
 duty to be fair, just and equitable towards him; 
 but our main concern is with the facts them- 
 selves, and our prime and paramount duty is to 
 consider the interests of humanity and the honour 
 of England. I regret that from motives which I 
 do not doubt grew out of nothing more than an 
 excess of zeal for the public service. Sir J. Bow- 
 ring has been led into proceedings in themselves 
 unwarrantable; but I am bound to express my 
 candid conviction that the policy, which Sir J. 
 Bowring has rather clumsily chosen his oppor- 
 tunity for carrying into effect, was a policy not 
 unknown beforeiiand to her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, nor by them disapproved. 1 found myself
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 in making that statement upon evidence palpable 
 to us all. I found myself upon what was quoted 
 by my right honourable friend the member for 
 Carlisle — a letter from Lord Clarendon, contained 
 in the papers before us — from which it appeared 
 to me to be distinctly established, that that 
 which had in former years been expressly pro- 
 hibited by successive Secretaries of State has now 
 come in principle to be permitted ; that it was 
 sufficiently understood between Sir J. Bowring 
 and his official inferior, that, although he was 
 bound to use the best of his judgment in making 
 choice of his occasion, yet he was to regard him- 
 self as at liberty to prosecute his design of ob- 
 taining entry into Canton ; and, lastly, that in 
 case of need the force of the British fleet was to 
 be available for supporting him in that design. 
 Therefore, Sir, it is not the case of Sir J. Bow- 
 ring that we are here trying. And still less, nay 
 far less, is it the case of Sir Michael Seymour. I 
 am sorry to say that this is not a pleasant part of 
 the question, and I shall not dwell upon it at any 
 leno;th : but I must remind the House that there 
 has been no answer to the statement made last 
 night by my right honourable friend the member 
 for South Wilts. He read to you a letter from Sir 
 J. Bowring: to Sir Michael Seymour, in which 
 undoubtedly the instructions of Ministers at home 
 were communicated to Sir Michael Seymour, but 
 — although I do not say they were intentionally
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 garbled, because I have no right or disposition to 
 believe it — they were made known to Sir Michael 
 Seymour in such a form, and in a manner so in- 
 complete, that they must have misled his judg- 
 ment, and must have communicated to him an 
 erroneous impression as to the views and inten- 
 tions of the Government from which they pro- 
 ceeded. 
 
 But further, Sir, my right honourable friend, 
 the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- 
 ment, said it was sad to see upon these occa- 
 sions — and it is sad to see — that the memory 
 of long and confidential official intercourse, and 
 of arduous labours conjointly performed in the 
 public service, is not sufficient to restrain men 
 from acrimonious and personal attacks. I am 
 quite sure that the words which I am now going 
 to quote fell unintentionally from my right ho- 
 nourable friend, but, at the same time, as such 
 words have been spoken, they ought to be noticed. 
 1 make no general charge of personalities against 
 the Secretary of State for the Home Department. 
 I do not hesitate to state my conviction that the 
 words in question were used almost unconsciously 
 in the heat of debate ; but my right honourable 
 friend did say, when referring to the noble lord 
 the member for the city of London : — 
 
 " 1 give him credit for that honesty of purpose, 
 and that depth of conviction, which I know influ- 
 ence every action of his life. I wish that 1 could
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 say as much — and I would gladly if I could — for 
 the right honourable gentleman the member for 
 Carlisle." 
 
 Sir, I submit to the Government, if it be neces- 
 sary for me to submit it, that these were words 
 which could hardly have represented the true 
 feelings of the Secretary of State, but if they did 
 represent his true feelings they were words in- 
 compatible with the relations that ought to sub- 
 sist between one member of this House and 
 another. 
 
 But 1 pass onward, Sir, from points like these 
 to express the satisfaction with which I heard, 
 towards the close of the speech of my right ho- 
 nourable friend, his manly declaration that this 
 was a question in which every man was bound 
 to give his vote irrespective of party or political 
 considerations. My right honourable friend spoke 
 out those words with warmth and sincerity, and 
 I think it the duty of every one who follows him 
 in debate to acknowledge and answer his appeal. 
 Sir, I have had the means of knowing the mind of 
 many members of this House with respect to the 
 question before it, and I can truly say that there 
 is not one of them, at least within my knowledge, 
 who is about to support the motion of the honour- 
 able member for the West Riding through the 
 influence of party or political motives. It was the 
 more creditable, Sir, on the part of my right 
 honourable friend to call upon us to apply this
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 criterion, because, not presuming to judge the 
 secret motives of men, but looking solely at their 
 overt acts and plain declarations, I do not hesitate 
 to say that the negative of the resolution will not 
 stand the application of that test so well. We 
 have heard the remarks of the honourable mem- 
 bers for West Norfolk and Cornwall. And here 
 let me stop to say that with regard to the charges 
 of anti-Protestantism and Democratism, of starv- 
 ing the British army, and of everything base and 
 vile in conduct which it seems to be the pleasure 
 of the honourable member for Norfolk to cast 
 upon me, I am far too sensible of the vast im- 
 portance of the issues that are before us to claim 
 the right, which perhaps the indulgence of the 
 House might concede, of defending myself against 
 those most dishonouring imputations. All these 
 I pass by in silence; but on the votes of the 
 honourable members for West Norfolk and Corn- 
 wall I must comment as a member of Parliament. 
 They know what is doing in China. They know 
 that no inconsiderable portion of Canton has been 
 in flames. They know that the troops which had 
 been posted to defend the rural districts against 
 the rebels have, through stern necessity, been 
 concentrated in that great city. They know — 
 for, without doubt, as was their duty, they have 
 read the papers - that — 
 
 " The removal of a military presence, such as 
 it was, from the districts overrun last ye^r by the
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 Hak-ka men has exposed these to a repetition of 
 a calamity in more aggravated form, and a very 
 considerable tract of country is believed to be 
 swept clean by the Hak-kas. One district city 
 has been seized, and its magistrate killed, and in 
 several towns, small and great, that have been 
 sacked, the inhabitants have been massacred 
 wholesale, without distinction of sex or age." 
 
 These things are known to the honourable mem- 
 bers for West Norfolk and Cornwall, and they 
 think that they discharge their duty as members 
 of the British House of Commons when they 
 frankly avow that the votes they are to give upon 
 this great question of humanity and justice are 
 to be influenced not even by a desire to keep a 
 Government in office — for that I could under- 
 stand — but by a fear lest three insignificant gen- 
 tlemen who sit on this bench should, through 
 some fancied combination, find their way into 
 power. Sir, I have the consolation of reflecting 
 that, though the votes which the honourable 
 members thus tender cannot indeed be rejected 
 by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- 
 ment — for it is not in his power to refuse them — 
 yet the high nature of my right honourable 
 friend has prevented him from availing himself, 
 even in a critical moment, of those votes without 
 laying down a principle that utterly repudiates 
 and condemns them. 
 
 Now, Sir, there are some points that have been
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 raised in these discussions, which, I pray the 
 House to take note, have been substantially aban- 
 doned or disposed of. It is very well to speak 
 with respect of the opinions of British merchants; 
 but it has never been the practice of Parliament, 
 when it has been dealing with questions in which 
 a particular part of the community had a particu- 
 lar and personal interest, even though that interest 
 should be accompanied with the advantage of 
 superior knowledge, to abdicate its own functions 
 and to register its judgments according to the 
 opinions of that class. I certainly, like the Secre- 
 tary of State for the Colonies, am one of the last 
 men in this House who either ought to feel, or 
 could by possibility feel, a disposition to throw 
 discredit upon the class from which I am sprung; 
 but I object entirely to this claim of authority, 
 and I say it is not according to the practice of 
 Parliament. If it had been the practice of Par- 
 liament to govern its proceedings, in cases where 
 particular classes were greatly interested, by the 
 opinions of those classes, its deliberations and the 
 course of modern legislation would have taken a 
 very different colour from that which they now 
 wear. We certainly, when we were considering 
 the Factory Bills, did not take as our paramount 
 autliority the opinions of the manufacturers. 
 When we were considering the Corn Laws, we 
 did not take as our paramount authority the 
 opinion of the landed gentlemen. When Parlia-
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 ment was considering the abolition of the Slave 
 Trade it did not follow as a conclusive authority 
 the voices of the members for Liverpool ; and if 
 in 1833 the sentiments of the West India planters, 
 with what was called, and not untruly called, 
 their practical knowledge of the negro character, 
 had been predominant, emancipation would cer- 
 tainly not have been given to the negro. Sir, 
 the judgment of the Chinese merchants is an 
 element in the case, but it does not discharge us 
 of our responsibility to become ourselves the 
 judges of that judgment, and to give sentence 
 accordingly. 
 
 Again, Sir, there is a charge which is some- 
 times made against these unfortunate Chinese, 
 and which seems to have weight given to it in 
 the minds of some persons. It is alleged that 
 they have a practice, when there is a competition 
 for official situations, of preferring those who are 
 supposed to be unfavourable to foreigners, and 
 of dismissing others because they suspect them of 
 an excess of friendly feeling towards foreigners. 
 But China is not the only country in which I 
 have heard of circumstances which appear to me 
 very correctly to answer that description. I find 
 at p. 4 of the papers respecting the entrance into 
 Canton the following passage — 
 
 " Muhchanghah, the then Prime Minister, 
 Hwang, Keying's able adviser, and a number 
 of other high functionaries, have been dismissed
 
 ( ^3 ) 
 
 because deemed favourable to foreigners; while 
 many mandarins, distinguished only for the vio- 
 lence of their ' anti-barbarian ' policy, have been 
 advanced to high posts of trust and honour." 
 
 Well, about two years ago a Prime Minister in 
 this country, not very unlike this Muhchanghah, 
 was dismissed for no other fault than this, that 
 he was deemed too favourable to foreigners, and 
 another mandarin was appointed in his place who 
 undoubtedly has always enjoyed his principal 
 credit with the people of England on the score 
 of his determined anti-barbarian propensities. Do 
 not then, Sir, let us visit this fault so severely 
 on the Chinese; for the sentence we pass may 
 recoil upon ourselves. Again, Sir, I really do 
 not believe that there remains much room for 
 discussion founded upon the Blue Book which 
 carries the cabalistic title " Insults in China." 
 The Secretary of State for the Home Department 
 cleared up a misapprehension on this subject, 
 and showed us that the title of that book, which 
 undoubtedly is delusive, had a natural origin in 
 the terms of the motion under which it was pro- 
 duced. But though all complaint as to the title 
 is thus removed, let us bear in mind the real 
 state of the case as to the contents ; the book does 
 not consist of a string of insults inflicted upon 
 the British by the Chinese. Seventeen years 
 ago, when we formerly discussed Chinese affairs, 
 there was frequently mentioned the name of
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 Mr. Jardine, who was so well known in China 
 that the natives used to describe him under a 
 sort of nickname, the English interpretation of 
 which certainly conveyed a compliment to his 
 Scotch sagacity, for it was said to mean "the 
 iron-headed old rat." Now Mr. Jardine took 
 the opportunity of a meeting of his country- 
 men connected with China to record, as an old 
 resident in that country, his strong conviction 
 that, although the Chinese were an unsocial — 
 in fact, an anti-social — a peculiar, and an exclu- 
 sive people, yet that the general rule of their 
 treatment of the English community was one 
 of kindness and justice; and I believe that that 
 is the impression which this blue-book will leave 
 upon the minds of those who have perused it. 
 How stands the case ? I believe that in the last 
 seven years of the period to M'hich this record 
 refers you have but six cases of insult, either 
 from Chinamen to British, or from Englishmen to 
 Chinese; and I ask whether that is a state of 
 things which, measuring it only by the number, 
 would at all tend to support the proposition that 
 you had festering wrongs of old standing in China 
 which only waited the moment to break forth, 
 and that though this miserable affair of the 
 lorcha was not a just cause of the war, yet 
 that there were legitimate causes already in 
 existence, of which it was the inevitable result ; 
 or whether it does not rather show that you
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 have made, by the good judgment of succes- 
 sive Ministers, considerable progress in conci- 
 liating the Chinese, in establishing a footing in 
 that country, and in reducing almost to nothing 
 those petty quarrels which of course must oc- 
 casionally occur ? I won't go into the nature 
 of each of those six cases which I admit to have 
 occurred. In two of them, if I remember rightly, 
 the aggressors were Englishmen. In all the others 
 the Chinese authorities exerted themselves to 
 the full satisfaction of the British authorities in 
 order to punish the offenders; and now let us 
 look for a moment at the last case. On the 6th 
 of October, only two days before the affair of 
 the lorcha, they brought to an end a case in 
 which a British missionary, as it appears to me 
 in a most culpable manner, wilfully and delibe- 
 rately violated the treaty and gave the Chinese 
 authorities the right to demand under the treaty 
 that he should be punished. They demanded, 
 however, no such thing. Nay more, the native 
 merchants became pecuniary security for him 
 to a considerable amount, and Mr. Parkes, 
 writing to Sir J. Bowring on the 6th of October, 
 states that the Imperial Commissioner in ma- 
 naging: the matter had shown a commendable 
 moderation in not calling on him to take more 
 stringent notice of that infraction of the treaty. 
 Such was the nature of the very latest transac- 
 tion with the authorities of China, two days
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 before what we are invited to believe to have 
 been a deliberate insult to England. 
 
 Then, the honourable member for the West 
 Riding is complained of for technicalities; and 
 yet not always for technicalities; sometimes it is 
 for technicalities, sometimes it is for generalities. 
 If he shows that there is no ground, whether 
 colonial, imperial or international, for these pro- 
 ceedings, he is accused of entangling himself in 
 technicalities; and if he speaks of the general 
 rules of comity, justice and peace which should 
 bind nations, he is accused of flying off into gene- 
 ralities ; and so, by alternating between techni- 
 calities and generalities, the defence of what is 
 indefensible is carried on. Let the House, how- 
 ever, recollect how this case of the technicalities 
 really stands. If you, the adversary, fail in your 
 proof of the technicalities, you fail altogether; if 
 you succeed in your proof of the technicalities 
 you do not succeed in the main issue, but you 
 only lay the first step of a long process which you 
 must demonstrate. If you are about to hang a 
 man, and, although you find a technical flaw in 
 the proceedings, yet persist in hanging him, is 
 that a technical offence only, or is it not also an 
 offence against the first principles of justice, 
 tending to undermine the essential safeguards of 
 society ? If on the other hand you have no tech- 
 nical error proved against you, if all your forms 
 were correct, it still remains to inquire whether
 
 ( i7 ) 
 
 the man has been hanged justly or unjustly. 
 It is just so here. You have got together with 
 most elaborate skill a parcel of pleas to impart a 
 British character to that which was Chinese, and 
 if you fail in your argument you have not an inch 
 of ground to stand upon. But if you succeed in 
 your argument, what follows ? Not that you 
 were justified in going to war, or in commencing 
 hostilities without war; for you must not only 
 show that there has been some denial of a right 
 which you are duly entitled to claim, but you 
 must show clearly upon evidence that the magni- 
 tude of the injury inflicted was sufficient to jus- 
 tify, and its urgency such as to require, a recourse 
 to arms; and, unless you prove these things, and 
 establish the substantial justice as well as the 
 mere technical admissibility of your demands, you 
 might as well never have begun your process of 
 reasoning. That is the case of the technicalities. 
 But we are approaching the close of the de- 
 bate, and at this advanced stage it may be well to 
 register some more of the results. Let me remind 
 the House, therefore, that no notice has been taken 
 on the opposite side of the argument of the learned 
 civilian the member for Tavistock, who states, 
 upon the authority of your own Queen's Advocate, 
 and of your own Foreign-office, that, if there were 
 a wrong here committed, the proper remedy was 
 distinctly pointed out by the principle of the law 
 of nations; that this remedy was to be sought in 
 
 c
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 reprisals, and in nothing beyond them. Let it be 
 remembered, then, that that challenge has not 
 been answered. 
 
 My honourable and learned friend the Attor- 
 ney-General did indeed answer, retrospectively 
 or by anticipation, a good many challenges. I 
 take it that this case is arguable on three grounds 
 ' — as a matter of municipal law, as a matter of 
 international law, or you may argue it, and far 
 strongest of all, as a question of natural justice. 
 What was the process adopted by the Attorney- 
 General ? I never heard a gentleman, learned or 
 unlearned, do so much execution in the course of 
 a single sentence as was done by my honourable 
 and learned friend. In endeavouring to quote 
 that sentence I am sure that I shall spoil it, so far 
 as the beauty of the language goes, but I shall 
 give the substance with accuracy. He said, 
 ** Don't expect me to answer specifically that 
 which may have been advanced in this House. 
 What I will do is to answer that which has been 
 advanced elsewhere, and you will find that in 
 doing that 1 shall answer everything that has 
 been said in this House." By that statement 
 it appears to me that my learned friend did great 
 execution ; for he contrived thereby — I won't 
 say to affront • — but certainly to chastise the 
 vanity of the whole House of Commons and of 
 one-half of the House of Lords. It is good for 
 us to have our vanity chastised, and, as far
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 as I am concerned, I tender my thanks to my 
 learned friend. There can be no question that he 
 chastised the House of Commons, because he said, 
 " After two nights' debate, until I the Attorney- 
 General rose it is ridiculous to suppose that any- 
 thing could have been said in this House which was 
 not said in the other House." But, now, look at 
 the bearing of this dictum upon one half the 
 House of Lords. Half the House of Lords ar- 
 gued in favour of a motion analogous to that of 
 the honourable member for the West Riding; 
 the other half, including his own legal chief, the 
 Lord Chancellor, argued against it. My honour- 
 able and learned friend said that he would answer 
 the arguments of those who supported the views 
 of the member for the West Riding, and in so 
 doing he pretty clearly implied that they had 
 not been answered before. He conveyed his 
 meaning still more directly afterwards ; for when 
 the Lord Chancellor and others had, with infi- 
 nite labour, constructed their little bulwarks and 
 fortifications about them as they best could, from 
 materials such as the statute law and colonial or- 
 dinance afforded, he swept them all away into the 
 sea, as we are told in the story of the siege of 
 Troy that Neptune swept away the bulwark of 
 the Greeks. He fairly cleared the decks, and 
 began upon his own account, staking everything 
 upon his own single argument, and declaring that 
 all that had been advanced before, drawn from 
 
 c2
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 statute law or from the colonial ordinance, to be 
 either worthless or immaterial. That is not, so 
 far as I am concerned, either an unimportant or 
 unsatisfactory result of the debate to place upon 
 record. 
 
 We now, therefore, start fresh and clear with 
 the honourable and learned gentleman the At- 
 torney-General. We have nothing to do with 
 those whom I am forbidden to name, but who 
 will be well understood; we have nothing to do 
 with their argument; but have only to look to the 
 argument as presented by the Attorney-General. 
 Well, the Attorney-General declined altogether to 
 deal with any argument or title which he could 
 derive from municipal law, whether imperial or 
 colonial. The honourable and learned gentleman 
 said that the only document to look to is the 
 treaty ; and it is under that treaty, if at all, that 
 we must make good our case. Now, I do not know 
 whether I shall be unduly taxing the patience of 
 the House, if I observe, in passing, how curiously, 
 as occasion serves and interest prompts, nations 
 and governments can accept in one year, or con- 
 struct in one year, arguments which in the mouth 
 of adverse powers they have repelled the year be- 
 fore. Last year we had a question with America 
 about recruiting. America charged us with having 
 broken the rules of international law. We de- 
 clined to admit the appeal to that tribunal, and 
 never would consent to be tried on any other issue
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 but whether we had broken the municipal law of 
 America. We then said in effect, that where a 
 country has dealt by its municipal law with part 
 of the matter of international law, that country is 
 bound by the definitions of its municipal law, and 
 is not entitled in the face of another country to go 
 beyond those definitions. That was the argument 
 last year when it served our turn, and now, when 
 it will serve our turn no longer, we have a dif- 
 ferent argument, the direct reverse of the former 
 one. We are now in the condition of America, 
 with limited conditions established by municipal 
 law. My honourable and learned friend the At- 
 torney-General, seeing that the Merchant Ship- 
 ping Act is fatal to his argument, now says, 
 exactly reversing the whole doctrine of the con- 
 troversy with America last year, we have nothing 
 to do with the narrow definitions of our municipal 
 law, but we must resort to the plain common- 
 sense view of the treaty. But my learned friend 
 was curiously inconsistent, not only with the ar- 
 gument of last year, but with his own argument 
 on the present occasion. He had just said the 
 treaty is the only document in the case, and the 
 municipal law has nothing to do with it, the 
 question is altogether one of international law. 
 And how did he make good his proposition ? It 
 turned on the meaning of the phrase " British 
 subject ;" and did the honourable and learned 
 gentleman derive his authority from the oracles of
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 international law ? No ; in order to fix who 
 were British subjects for the purposes of the 
 treaty, he resorted to a dictum of a municipal tri- 
 bunal dealing with a civil question at home, and, 
 after denying that the municipal law could sup- 
 ply materials to assist us in coming to a right 
 view of the case, he fetched forth a judgment of 
 that tribunal and presented it as an instrument 
 which was authoritatively to decide the question. 
 But the last and greatest wonder of all is, that 
 this instrument which he made use of was, as has 
 been shown by the honourable and learned mem- 
 ber for Tavistock, by the honourable and learned 
 gentleman opposite, and lastly and perhaps most 
 clearly of all by the honourable and learned mem- 
 ber for Plymouth, utterly worthless for his pur- 
 pose, and had nothing whatever to do with the 
 case. What the honourable and learned At- 
 torney-General showed was this, that there was a 
 judgment or, perhaps, judgments of British courts, 
 under which the courts of this country acknow- 
 ledged the claim of a natural-born English subject, 
 who had become an American subject, had been 
 domiciled, registered, had struck out all the roots 
 of his social life in America, to the rights and pri- 
 vileges of an American subject, under a particular 
 treaty which described him as an American sub- 
 ject. What is the use of stating such a case and 
 applying it to the case of the Chinese, who do not 
 claim under the definitions of a particular treaty,
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 who had never been domiciled in any legal sense in 
 British dominions, who had never been naturalized 
 at all, who had taken no oath of allegiance, who had 
 not even, according to my learned friend's argu- 
 ment, leased a handful of land at Hongkong, but 
 were mere residents there for a short or long time, 
 as the case might be? The whole question, ac- 
 cording to the Attorney-General's argument, turns 
 on the construction of the 17th article of the 
 treaty; and what by the term "British subject" 
 is meant at Hongkong? It includes every Chinese 
 resident within the British allegiance according 
 to the Attorney-General, whether he had resided 
 there a long time, or only for the moment when 
 he took out his register. Now, Sir, if that were 
 really the law, it would be time to call law itself 
 before the tribunal of common sense and justice; 
 because then, instead of being the guardian of the 
 institutions of the State, and the regulator of the 
 relations between man and man, it would be a 
 mass of cabalistic art, got up by sophistical 
 minds, not to assist the infirm reason of mankind, 
 but taking advantage of the infirmity of that 
 reason to prevent its ever arriving at a right con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Having adverted to the arguments founded on 
 the municipal and international law, I now ask 
 how does this question stand on the higher ground 
 of natural justice ? 1 say the higher ground, be- 
 cause this is the highest ground of all. My right
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 honourable friend the member for Carlisle (Sir 
 James Graham) was peremptorily forbidden to 
 appeal to the principles of Christianity. 1 grant 
 that it is painful to have them brought into dis- 
 cussions of this kind ; but at the same time any 
 man, feeling the obligations of the position in 
 which he is placed, might find it difficult under 
 the circumstances altogether to avoid reference to 
 such a topic. However, as it seems to give offence, 
 I will make no appeal to those principles ; but I 
 will appeal to that which is older than Christi- 
 anity, because it was in the world before it — to 
 that which is broader than Christianity, because 
 it extends in the world beyond it — and to that 
 which underlies Christianity, for Christianity 
 itself appeals to it — I appeal to that justice 
 which binds man to man. I ask the House to 
 take with me a short survey of the position in 
 which we stand in China. We have spoken of 
 the treaty obligations of China towards ourselves; 
 but let not our treaty obligations to China be 
 forgotten. For what purpose did we acquire 
 Hongkong ? Have you looked to the terms of 
 the treaty on that point? It is there stated in the 
 Third Article, that the Emperor of China cedes 
 Hongkong, the reason being that it is obviously 
 necessary and desirable that British subjects 
 should have some port where they may careen 
 and refit their ships. If you meant to act strictly 
 according to the intention of the treaty, that was
 
 (* 25 ) 
 
 the purpose to which the port of Hongkong should 
 have been applied. I have heard the Vice-Pre- 
 sident of the Board of Trade with astonishment 
 on this question. He rose from his seat and said 
 that he would introduce something not mentioned 
 before. It certainly had not been mentioned be- 
 fore ; it has not been mentioned since; and I 
 much doubt whether it will ever be mentioned 
 again. The right honourable gentleman said 
 that the Chinese population at Hongkong was 
 not to be considered as an ordinary population of 
 Chinese origin, since it was handed over to the 
 Queen of England by the Emperor of China. 
 Most important, if true ; but then, unhappily, it 
 is not true. The number of Chinese now at 
 Hongkong, estimated by the Attorney-General 
 there, and naturalized by the Attorney-General 
 here, is G0,000. The number when we took the 
 island was stated by my right honourable friend 
 (Sir James Graham) at 1,000. I believe even 
 this to be an exaggeration. At the time Hong- 
 kong was conceded I believe the number of 
 Chinese there was about 500. 
 
 But again. Sir, the employment of Hongkong 
 as a port for careening and refitting ships is not 
 our only treaty obligation to China. There is 
 another. It is expressed in the 12th article of 
 the supplementary treaty : — 
 
 " A fair and regular tariff of duties and other 
 dues having now been established, it is to be
 
 ( 2G ) 
 
 hoped that the system of smuggling which has 
 heretofore been carried on between English and 
 Chinese merchants — in many cases with the open 
 connivance and collusion of the Chinese Custom- 
 house officers — will entirely cease; and the most 
 peremptory proclamation to all English merchants 
 has been already issued on this subject by the 
 British plenipotentiary, who will also instruct the 
 different consuls to strictly watch over and care- 
 fully scrutinize the conduct of all persons being 
 British subjects trading under his superintend- 
 ence." 
 
 By that article you have contracted^ under the 
 most solemn obligations, to put down smuggling 
 to the very best of your power. Is there any- 
 thing peculiar in your smuggling on the coast of 
 China to give special stringency to this obliga- 
 tion ? It comprises the worst, the most perni- 
 cious, the most demoralizing and destructive of 
 all the contraband trades that are carried on upon 
 the surface of the globe. Partly, indeed, it is a 
 trade in salt. That, of course, can be open to no 
 objection beyond the fact that it is contraband. 
 But it is also partly a trade in opium. Have we 
 or have we not struggled to put down that trade ? 
 I ask the noble Viscount who will address the 
 House to-night, have the British Government 
 struggled to put down that trade ? Will it be 
 said that they did struggle to put it down, but 
 they found that it was too strong for them ?
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 Then, I ask whether, at least, they liave refrained 
 from doing anything to encourage that trade ? 
 No, Sir, they have done the very thing that is 
 now in issue. They have created this fleet of 
 lorchas, and have protected it by colonial law. 
 What has been its purpose ? What has been its 
 effect? I refer you to the very words of your own 
 authority, page 7 of the correspondence upon re- 
 gistration, where it is said that the granting of 
 the registers to these colonial vessels has been 
 eminently beneficial to Hongkong. That passage 
 was quoted by the Lord-Advocate. He is a 
 gentleman of so much intelligence that, as he 
 appeared not to have gathered the sense of it, I 
 infer that he cannot have read these papers. It 
 was beneficial to the colony. And why was it 
 beneficial ? Because it increased this coasting 
 trade. These are the words of the Colonial Trea- 
 surer: — " If anything has been and will be pre- 
 eminently beneficial to this colony, it is that very 
 system of granting colonial registers, particularly 
 
 to respectable Chinese settled here Since 
 
 it has already added to, and still tends to increase, 
 the coasting trade in goods, the manufacture of 
 Great Britain or the produce of India, such as 
 cotton, opium, &c." It is quite plain that this 
 coasting trade mainly has reference to smuggling 
 purposes. There can be no doubt about it. Un- 
 fortunately, the quantity of British goods you 
 send to China is still extremely small. Your
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 greatest and most valuable trade with China is 
 this trade in opium. It is a smuggling trade. You 
 promised to put it down. You received Hong- 
 kong for the purpose of careening and refitting 
 your vessels, and instead of that you have drawn 
 together those 60,000 Chinese within it, and from 
 them you find the materials for manning, sus- 
 taining and organizing a fleet of coasters whose 
 business is to enlarge, who have enlarged, and 
 who are enlarging, that smuggling traffic that 
 you are bound by treaty to put down. So stands 
 the case so far as the treaty is concerned. And, 
 now, having taken Hongkong for purposes that 
 you have not fulfilled, having applied it to dif- 
 ferent purposes, having failed entirely, or rather 
 not having bona fide endeavoured to put down 
 this smuggling trade, which on the contrary has 
 grown largely since the treaty, having organized 
 this coasting trade for purposes which included 
 an enlargement of that smuggling trade, you ac- 
 cumulate all these acts of injustice by trumping 
 up a claim built upon the most pitiable tech- 
 nicalities to cover this coasting fleet with the 
 British flag ; and when we are told that such 
 proceedings ought not to be endured, then you 
 reproach us with indifference to the honour of 
 the ensign of our country. Was there ever such 
 a series of mockeries ? But you have confessed 
 that the case of the Arrow is satisfied. I won't 
 weary the House by quoting the words of Consul
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 Parkes on that subject. There is no doubt about 
 their meaning. They have been cited over and 
 over again in this debate. He undoubtedly con- 
 fesses in these documents that the case of the 
 Arrow is satisfied ; and you are now, in point of 
 fact, engaged, as I will show, in bombarding and 
 burning a city in order that your envoy may enter 
 within it. 
 
 My right honourable friend the Secretary of 
 State for the Colonies made a complaint on the 
 part of Her Majesty's Government that gentle- 
 men were irreverently in the habit of speaking of 
 the war in China. He said there is no war in 
 China. I agree with him ; there is not war in 
 China. 
 
 [Mr, Labouchere. — " I said there was no war 
 with China."] 
 
 I thank my right honourable friend for that 
 correction. There is not war with China. No, 
 Sir, there is not war with China, but what is 
 there? There is hostility. There is bloodshed. 
 There is a trampling down of the weak by the 
 strong. There is the terrible and abominable 
 retaliation of the weak upon the strong. You 
 are now occupied in this House by revolting and 
 harrowing details about a Chinese baker who 
 poisoned bread, — about proclamations for the 
 capture of British heads, — about the waylaying 
 of a postal steamer, and the murder of those on 
 board. And these things you think strengthen
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 your case. Why, they deepen your guilt. War 
 taken at the best is a frightful scourge to the 
 human race, but because it is so the wisdom of 
 ages has surrounded it with strict laws and 
 usages, and has required formalities to be ob- 
 served which shall act as a curb upon the wild 
 passions of man, to prevent that scourge from 
 being let loose unless under circumstances of 
 full deliberation and from absolute necessity. 
 You have dispensed with all these precautions. 
 You have turned a consul into a diplomatist, and 
 that metamorphosed consul is forsooth to be at 
 liberty to direct the whole might of England 
 against the heads of a defenceless people. Again, 
 while war is a scourge and curse to man, it is 
 yet attended with certain compensations. It is 
 attended with acts of heroic self-sacrifice and of 
 unbounded daring. It is ennobled by a con- 
 sciousness that you are meeting equals in the 
 field, and that while you challenge the dread 
 issue of life or death you at least enter into a fair 
 encounter. But you go to China and make war 
 upon those who stand before you as women or 
 as children. They try to resist you ; they call 
 together their troops ; they load their guns ; they 
 kill one and wound perhaps two in action, but 
 while they are touching units you perhaps slay 
 thousands. They are unable to meet you in the 
 field. You have no equality of ground on which 
 to meet them. You can earn no glory in such
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 warfare. And it is those who put the British flag 
 to such uses that stain it. It is not from them 
 that we are to hear rhetorical exaggerations on 
 the subject of the allegiance that we owe it Such 
 is the case of the war in China. And to what 
 do these people who are as mere women and 
 children before you have recourse, when you 
 make war with them ? They resort to those 
 miserable, those detestable contrivances which 
 their weakness teaches them. It is not the first 
 time in the history of the world. Have you never 
 read of those terrific rebellions of Slaves which 
 have risen to the dignity of being decorated with 
 the name of wars, and which stand upon the page 
 of history as the servile wars ? And is it not 
 notorious that among all the wars upon record 
 those have been the most terrible, ferocious and 
 destructive ? And why .'' Because those who 
 have been trampled upon exhibit in their turti 
 the vices which oppression and tyranny have 
 taught them. And that is the character of the 
 war which we are prosecuting in China. Every 
 account that we shall read in the journals or hear 
 recited in this House will tell of calamity heaped 
 upon calamity, and of cruelty heaped upon cruelty. 
 The honourable member for Cornwall eulogized, 
 forsooth, the humane manner in which our forces 
 threw cannon balls into Canton at moderate in- 
 tervals. I have received a letter, dated the 14th 
 January, which has not been published in the
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 journals. I am certain the House will attend to 
 it. It is written by one of our officers, and it 
 shows the character of our operations against 
 Canton, and the extent they have attained. He 
 says, — 
 
 ** On Monday morning, at daylight, fire parties 
 were told off from the Encounter, Barracouta, Ni- 
 ger, the 59th, and, last not least, the Dutch Folly. 
 The orders were to advance as near as possible to 
 the city wall, and all the suburbs from Shamen Fort 
 down to the Dutch Folly were to be burnt. This 
 was well accomplished, and by nine o'clock there 
 was a tremendous conflagration, having been fired 
 in so many places. The naval, I am glad to say, 
 had no casualties. Not so the 59th ; they had 
 W'hat I consider a severe loss — two killed, eleven 
 seriously and two slightly wounded; — had a nar- 
 row escape, as also one of our fire party. They 
 were surprised and nearly cut off by a hundred 
 and more men, but the revolvers and cutlasses 
 told well, and they rushed clear. We then com- 
 menced * carcasses' and fireballs from the Folly 
 into the city, and got up a tremendous fire, which 
 was much aided by a very strong breeze, which 
 blew all day, and they only got the fire under in 
 the city about noon on Tuesday. It must have 
 done great damage. The entire suburbs from 
 Shameen Fort to 400 yards beyond this fort in 
 the French Folly direction is now a mass of 
 ruins."
 
 ( '^3 ) 
 
 Sir, that is the state of things that existed on 
 the 14th of January. That is the state of things 
 to which, as early as circumstances permit, but, 
 unhappily, I fear, too late, the wisdom and firm- 
 ness of Parliament have been called upon to apply 
 a remedy or a check; and now, when this matter 
 has been discussed, — when the cause has been 
 sustained by learning, eloquence, zeal and feel- 
 ing, worthy as relates to the other House of Par- 
 liament, and worthy as relates to some portion 
 of the debate in this House, of the best days of 
 parliamentary history,- that which calls itself 
 worldly wisdom steps in and warns us against 
 the exercise of the authority of Parliament in 
 putting a check upon these proceedings. We are 
 told to take care what we are about. We are 
 told to support our representatives; we are in- 
 structed to do them justice; but at least by this 
 time we have swept away the rubbish which has 
 been vented with respect to Sir J. Bowring. We 
 have got so far in the consideration of this ques- 
 tion, that we must not again be told we are deal- 
 ing judicially with Sir J. Bowring. As far as we 
 are dealing with persons at all, it is with the 
 Government by whom these proceedings have 
 been approved that we are now dealing; but we 
 are dealing much more with the vast interests of 
 humanity which are at stake, and with respect to 
 which we are told that they, and they alone, ought 
 to guide us. But we are told to beware of an ad- 
 
 D
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 verse vote of the House of Commons. We are told 
 toconsidertheeffectof such a vote upon the Chinese. 
 We are told to consider the ruinous consequences 
 to our trade. We are asked if we wish to extend 
 the ruinous conflagration which has broken out, 
 and to injure those interests of humanity which 
 it is our duty to assert. That is the argument 
 sincerely used ; I gladly make this concession to 
 those who use it. Our last accounts from China 
 are up to the middle of January, and we have 
 now reached the 3rd of March. No human wis- 
 dom can tell, and I, for one, am not bold enough 
 to conjecture, what may have happened or may 
 yet happen within the three months that have 
 elapsed after the date of the last advices, and 
 before the decision of Parliament can reach 
 China. But, Sir, I must say that if I am to 
 look merely to the continuation of the influences 
 that have been at work on the spot, there can 
 be nothing darker than the prospect before us, 
 and I, for one, should scarcely have the smallest 
 hope of either an early or a favourable issue. I 
 do not speak of military operations, but there 
 seems to be something strangely amiss in the 
 directing mind. For a time, again, we were 
 amused with the story that the population of 
 Canton were rising against the authorities. On 
 the contrary, we are now assured by very dif- 
 ferent accounts, that the populace are arming 
 to a man to do their best, wretched as that best
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 may be, I will not say to fight, but to expose 
 themselves and to die in the quarrel into which 
 they have been forced. But of all the cases in 
 which warlike operations were ever begun, I do 
 not know of any in which the political problem 
 to be solved was so simple. What do w^e want 
 from the Chinese ? They are not making war 
 on us. If when the vote of this Parliament goes 
 to China they should be making war on us, that 
 would be a very different matter. The defence 
 of the lives and properties of the subjects of the 
 Queen would be, under all circumstances, an im- 
 perative obligation. But there is nothing so im- 
 probable as that they should make war on us. 
 They have never shown any skill or daring in the 
 nature of aggressive operations. We are making 
 war upon them, and for what are we making 
 war? What are we asking from the Chinese? 
 Sir J. Bowring has proposed our entrance into 
 Canton, but the Government has never told us 
 that this is an adequate cause for the war. They 
 have never told us even that they consider our 
 entrance into Canton desirable. It is impossible 
 for me to say whether it is desirable, but I own 
 I lean to the opinion of Yeh, the Chinese Com- 
 missioner, and that I am inclined to believe that 
 our entrance into Canton, if it were conceded, 
 would, at least at the present moment, be more 
 mischievous than beneficial. I, for one, therefore, 
 see no reason why we should make war for the 
 
 £
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 purpose of obtaining a thing which, so far from 
 being desirable, is likely to be mischievous. Sir, 
 there never was a case in which the solution of 
 the political problem was so simple, for the actual 
 state of war has never been constituted. This is 
 a happy thing. I might almost say it is a pro- 
 vidential circumstance, if we consider it in regard 
 to the solution of the difficulty. The state of war 
 has not been regularly and legally constituted, 
 and that freedom which we now possess for cor- 
 recting the proceedings of our agents would have 
 been lost if war had been regularly and formally 
 declared. But, Sir, I am not content with that 
 mode of dealing with such an argument. I find 
 an appeal has been made to this House which 
 appears to me to be a false and illegitimate ap- 
 peal. It is an appeal to fear, which is seldom 
 a rightful and noble sentiment, and it is to that 
 fear which is the basest and the worst kind of 
 fear — the fear of being thought afraid. The Go- 
 vernment are afraid of the mischievous impres- 
 sion that will be produced upon the Chinese if 
 the acts of our officials are disavowed. Sir, let us 
 consider fairly, impartially and at large the moral 
 impressions that must now be produced, nay, that 
 have already been produced, in this country and 
 in Europe, by the debates of Parliament. Let 
 us w^eigh the evil upon one side and the other, 
 and I have no fear of the result. Presently we 
 shall be told by the noble lord of the wise caution
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 that we ought to display, of the solemn predica- 
 ment in which we are placed, of the political 
 mischief which may ensue. Shadowy pictures 
 will be drawn of the dangers, the confusion, the 
 weakness and the paralysis of British power in 
 the East. But what is the foundation of British 
 power in the East — what is at least the founda- 
 tion of all promise of permanence and usefulness 
 for that British power? It is not now a question 
 in which the Chinese are alone concerned ; for 
 the debate has been prolonged night after night, 
 and your words have gone forth throughout Eng- 
 land and earth. The confessions and avowals 
 of the supporters of the Government have been, it 
 appears to me, perfectly fatal either to the con- 
 tinuance of our power, or else to the character 
 and fame of England. They talk of the conse- 
 quences, they admit in full the injustice; and 
 then they say that we must go on with that in- 
 justice. They speak of the necessity of applying 
 the law of force to the Chinese, and they teach 
 that it is by force that British influence must be 
 spread. Now we have not power to prevent the 
 language of this debate from being read. There 
 is a general admission, either express or tacit, 
 that the conduct of the British authorities cannot 
 be defended on its merits. The opponents of the 
 resolution of my honourable friend have not gene- 
 rally ascended to that height of boldness. Few 
 have justified the proceedings that have taken 
 
 e2
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 place. I heard the speech of the honourable and 
 learned member for Hertford, but I did not un- 
 derstand that he approved them. I heard the 
 speech of my honourable and learned friend the 
 Attorney-General, but I thought he cautiously 
 eschewed that portion of the case. I doubt whe- 
 ther my right honourable friend the Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department justified the pro- 
 ceedings. Many of those who intend to support 
 the Government have openly condemned them. 
 The honourable gentleman the member for Corn- 
 wall condemns them. The honourable member 
 for West Norfolk condemns them. Members 
 more than I could name have condemned these 
 transactions. I will ask what the effect will be 
 throughout the world, if it goes forth that in the 
 debates held in the two Houses of Parliament the 
 majority, nay almost the whole of the speakers 
 condemned the proceedings, and that even among 
 those who sustained the Government with their 
 vote there was a large number who condemned 
 and scarcely any that ventured to uphold them. 
 Why, Sir, the opinion will be that England is a 
 power which, while it is higher and more daring 
 in its pretensions to Christianity than any other 
 power on the face of the globe, yet in a case where 
 her own interests have been concerned, and where 
 she has been acting in the remote and distantEast, 
 when fairly put to it and asked whetlier she would 
 do right or wrong, she was ready to adopt for fear
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 of political inconvenience the principle — " I will 
 make the law of wrong the law of my Eastern 
 policy, and will lay the foundation of that empire 
 which is my proudest boast in nothing more nor 
 less than gross injustice." Sir, this is not my 
 opinion. I will not believe that England will 
 lay the foundation of its Eastern empire in sin 
 and in shame like this. I believe, on the contrary, 
 that if you have the courage to assert your prero- 
 gatives as the British House of Commons, you will 
 pursue a course which is more consistent with 
 sound policy as well as with the eternal principles 
 of j ustice. Sir, how stands the case at this moment ? 
 I have just now supposed that the House are 
 going to affirm that resolution which will be the 
 seal of our disgrace. But let me reverse the 
 picture, and suppose that the House will adopt 
 the resolution, and then what will the House do, 
 and what will be the history of this case ? Its 
 history, I venture to affirm, will read well for 
 England and for the nineteenth century in which 
 we live. Its history will then be this, — The su- 
 bordinate officers of England, in a remote quarter 
 of the globe, misconstrued the intentions of their 
 country; they acted in violation of the principle 
 of right; the Executive Government failed to 
 check them. The appeal was made from the 
 Government to the House of Lords, and made 
 as such an appeal ought to be made, for the 
 cause was worthy of the eloquence, and the elo-
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 quence was worthy of the cause. It was made 
 to nobles, and it was made to bisliops, and it 
 failed. But it does not rest with subordinate 
 functionaries abroad, — it does not rest with the 
 Executive Government, — it does not rest with 
 the House of Lords, finally, and in the last 
 resort, to say what shall be the policy of Eng- 
 land and to what purpose her power shall be di- 
 rected. Sir, that function lies within these walls. 
 Every member of the House of Commons is 
 proudly conscious that he belongs to an assembly 
 which in its collective capacity is the paramount 
 power of the State. But if it is the paramount 
 power of the State, it can never separate from 
 that paramount power a similar and paramount 
 responsibility. The vote of the House of Lords 
 will not acquit us : the sentence of the Govern- 
 ment will not acquit us. It is with us that it 
 lies to determine whether this wrong shall re- 
 main unchecked and uncorrected ; and in a time 
 when sentiments are so much divided, every man 
 I trust will give his vote with the recollection 
 and the consciousness that it may depend upon 
 that single vote whether the miseries, the crimes, 
 the atrocities that 1 fear are now proceeding in 
 China are to be discountenanced or not. We 
 have now come to the crisis of the case. Eng-land 
 is not yet committed. But, if an adverse division 
 reject the motion of my honourable friend, to- 
 morrow morning England will have been com-
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 mitted. With every one of us it rests to take his 
 part in showing that this House, which is the first, 
 the most ancient, and the noblest temple of free- 
 dom in the world, is also the temple of that ever- 
 lasting- justice without which freedom itself would 
 be only a name or only a curse to mankind. And, 
 Sir, I cherish the trust and the belief that, when 
 you rise in your place to-night to declare the 
 numbers upon the division from the chair which 
 you adorn, the words which you shall speak will 
 go forth from the walls of the House of Commons 
 as a message of mercy and peace, but also as 
 a message of prudence and true wisdom, to the 
 farthest corner of the world.
 
 PRINTED BY C. ROWORTH AND SONS, 
 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR.
 
 ■m 
 
 m.
 
 m 
 
 #