§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the deposition made by Thomas Kennedy, who is stated to have been the master of the lorcha seized by the Chinese authorities, and to have been on board at the time of that seizure, would be included in the other papers with respect to China, 197 which were promised to be laid before the House? And further, whether the noble Earl could lay on the table any despatch, if such existed, from Her Majesty's Government at home to Sir John Bowring, authorizing him to take the opportunity, if any favourable opportunity should arise, to urge upon the authorities of Canton the necessity of observing the treaty entered into between the two countries under which Englishmen were to be admitted into Canton?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDON, in answer to the first question of the noble Earl, said the depositions of Thomas Kennedy, the master of the lorcha, was included in the papers which he laid on the table the night before last. On inquiry he had ascertained that the delay which had arisen in distributing these papers among their Lordships was owing to its being found desirable to have a map of the river of Canton, which gave a complete view of all the operations there. That map had been prepared; and in the course of the evening, he believed, the papers would be in their hands, and they would include the deposition referred to by the noble Earl. With respect to the other question, he had to state that no specific instructions had been given to Sir John Bowring by Her Majesty's Government respecting the admission of British subjects to Canton; but in the general instructions with which he was furnished when he left this country he was told to bear in mind the desirableness of obtaining that free access to Chinese ports which were mentioned in the treaty, and more particularly as regarded Canton. When Sir John Bowring arrived at his post, he communicated his arrival to the Imperial Commissioner, and requested an interview with him, in order that he might communicate with him upon various matters. That interview was refused, and the only despatch addressed to Sir John Bowring on the subject was one in which the Government communicated their approval of the measures he had taken on that occasion. No instruction had been sent to him since, although Sir John Bowring has constantly represented the inconvenience arising from a want of direct communication with the Chinese authorities.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in how short a time the papers relating to Persia, which he had promised, would be laid on the table?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, it 198 had been his intention to lay them on the table in a very few days; and the only reason he was not now able to specify a particular time for doing so (although they were quite ready), had reference to the negotiations which were likely to be entered into with the Persian Government through its representative in Paris.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think the reason given by the noble Earl afforded any sufficient reason for delay in the production of these papers. He did not ask for any papers affecting negotiations which might be now pending, but he did ask for papers illustrative of the motives which led the Government to enter into the war, and of the manner in which that war was proclaimed. He must say he was very much struck with the powerful statement made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), on a former evening, and though he (the Earl of Derby) did not vote in favour of his Amendment, yet in the general principle which the noble Earl laid down he was disposed to concur. He did not think that the mode in which the war was commenced and proclaimed was consistent with the constitutional practice of this country.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHinquired if there were any papers illustrative of the measures—whatever they might have been—which had been taken by the Government of India on their receiving information that the Persians were moving hostilely towards Herat?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he would give an answer to the question on another occasion.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, a very different policy appeared to have been adopted on the present occasion with respect to China, from that followed by the Government of the Earl of Derby, and the Government which preceded his, relative to that country; and that the former policy had been changed by Sir John Bowring. If his memory did not fail him, he (the Earl of Malmesbury), when he held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir John Bowring, during the leave of absence given to Sir George Bonham, constantly urged upon the Government the necessity of insisting upon the fulfilment of that particular part of the treaty which gave us the right to enter Canton. Now, nobody ever doubted our right on this point; but there was a great difference of opinion as to the advisability of insisting upon such right. If he remembered correctly, Sir 199 George Bonham—than whom there was not a more prudent or more experienced man—was of opinion that it would not be beneficial, but rather the reverse, to insist upon our right—that trade could be carried on quite as well, and perhaps better, at the factories without the English entering Canton, which would only expose them to the insults of a barbarous population, and would be likely to lead to difficulties between the two countries. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) therefore hoped that if the Government wished the public to understand the whole question, they would go back a little further, and, among the papers which they were about to lay before the House, would give them some of the despatches sent home in 1852 and 1853, on the point to which he had referred; and particularly any—if there were any—in which Sir George Bonham, whose opinion was worth listening to on such a question, expressed his belief that it would be inexpedient to press for an entry into Canton. Such despatches would serve as antidotes to those of Sir John Bowring, who recommended a course exactly the reverse of this.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the object of the Government was to furnish every information illustrative of the policy pursued by the Government. The despatches alluded to by the noble Earl would not be included in the papers which it was intended to lay before the House, but he apprehended there would be no objection whatever to give them if their Lordships thought it was desirable to have them. If he remembered rightly, the noble Earl in his despatches to Sir John Bowring, during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, gave no decided opinion on the subject, but requested Sir John Bowring to confine himself strictly to keeping the status quo. Sir John Bowring was acting as English Plenipotentiary during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, and the noble Earl's instructions to him were not to meddle with anything which Sir George had done.
§ EARL GREYsaid, he was exceedingly glad that there was no objection on the part of the Government to lay these despatches before the House. It was quite essential to a right comprehension of this important question, that the House should be in possession of a selection of the more important despatches relating to it from the date of the treaty with China—for this was no new controversy, but was one which had been going on for a considerable 200 time. He entreated the noble Earl to have the goodness to produce also the despatch which he (Earl Grey) wrote in November, 1847, strictly prohibiting all offensive operations on the part of the local authorities, without reference being made to the Government at home. That was a despatch written by him after communicating with the Duke of Wellington, who entertained the strongest opinion as to the absolute necessity of peace being maintained; and it received the entire assent of the Cabinet of that year.