§ LORD LYNDHURSTI wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the colonial ordinance under which registers are granted to vessels by our authorities at Hong Kong; and I wish further to ask whether he will lay upon the table of the House a copy (if he has a copy) of the register which was actually granted to the shipArrow? I have another question which I wish also to put to my noble Friend, of which I have given him notice, relating to a very different subject, and I am desirous of putting it at once in order to save him the trouble of rising a second time. My noble Friend has no doubt read an article which appeared in the Moniteur a few days ago, and (as I anticipate) has read it with some degree of surprise. I refer to an article which has certainly created a very strong impression on the Continent, and the more so as it appears that certain well-known individuals, Prince Stirbey, Bibesco, Soutza, and a young prince connected with the two Imperial families of Russia and France, whose name I do not know, are either now in Paris or have recently been there, and have not been altogether idle in that very intriguing city. The article to which I refer states that the Emperor from the 333 very first was desirous of procuring the union of the two Principalities; that every circumstance which has since occurred has confirmed him in that opinion; and it farther states that he anticipates that the other Powers who at present seem adverse to these views will ultimately adopt them. The writer also suggests, though he does not state it in very distinct terms, that the subject of the union of the two Principalities will be submitted to the consideration of the assemblies which are to meet under the firman of the Porte. I understand, however, my Lords, and I have understood it all along, that both Turkey and, I think, Austria have taken a different view of the subject, and are very reluctant to allow that question to come before the assemblies to which I have referred. Now, this is a question of very great importance; because the Principalities are the barriers to which Turkey looks as a defence in future against Austria on the one side, and Russia on the other; and if these Principalities are to be united in one empire, and a foreign prince is to be placed at the head of that kingdom, subject to the influence of other States, particularly that of Russia—if at one extremity of Turkey in Europe we are to see a kingdom influenced by Russia, and another kingdom at the other extremity, namely, the kingdom of Greece, influenced by the same Power—such a state of things may produce very great danger to Turkey, and would certainly excite great alarm on the part of the Turkish Government. The question I have to put to my noble Friend is this:—Whether it is intended that the assemblies which are to meet in the two Principalities under the firman of the Porte shall take into consideration and report upon the propriety of uniting the two Principalities; or whether that question is to be referred exclusively to the consideration of the Representatives of the great Powers at a future Conference to be held at Paris?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONWith respect to the first question that has been addressed to me by my noble and learned Friend, I have to say that there can be no objection to lay upon the table the colonial ordinances under which the registers are issued in China. I do not, however, apprehend that the register furnished to the Arrow can be produced, because I do not believe it has been the custom to send home copies of registers given to such vessels. They are given in great numbers, and it would obviously hardly be worth while to transmit them to this country. I 334 will, however, inquire; and if the formal register granted in the case of the Arrow be forthcoming, it shall be laid upon the table. With respect to the other question put to me by my noble and learned Friend, I certainly did read the article in the Moniteur referred to by him, and (as he supposes) read it with some surprise. My Lords, I will confine myself, on the present occasion, to answering the question of my noble and learned Friend. There is no bar put to the discussion of the question of the union of the Principalities, or of any other question arising out of the Treaty of Paris, by the firman which has been lately issued. That has been a faithful compliance with the intentions of the Conference of Paris. They declared—and this was accepted by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries—that the people of the Principalities should be free to discuss any subject connected with the form of government to be adopted there; consequently, my Lords, the firman can not restrict the divans assembled under it from entertaining the subject. But, at the same time, the assumption certainly was that no determination would be come to or recommendation made by these divans that would interfere with the suzerainty of the Porte, or compel it to exercise that power in any way which would compromise the safety and integrity of the Turkish Empire. At the present moment I shall refrain from entering into any discussion on the subject, or from saying how far I agree in the opinions expressed by my noble and learned Friend; I do so, because there was an understanding come to between the representatives of the great Powers at the Conference of Paris, that until the divans had met, until the people of the Principalities had been consulted, until the report of the Commissioners had been received, and the Conference had met to consider it, no one of those Powers would do anything to influence opinion in the Principalities, or elsewhere upon that particular question. I think, therefore, I am only fulfilling that engagement, so far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, if at the present moment I abstain from discussing the subject.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI wish to recur to the first question put by my noble and learned Friend, relating to the Chinese papers, and to ask whether the noble Earl will have any objection to add to those papers some documents which appear of importance in elucidating the subsequent part of these transactions? The question 335 of the Arrow and of the reparation required for the seizure of that vessel forms one part of the difficulty in which we are now involved. In the course of the correspondence which has been published, however, the main difficulty seems to turn upon a point of a very different character, which I cannot help thinking the Superintendent at Canton has rather sought for a pretext to introduce as between the two countries. I refer to his demand for the free admission of British subjects into Canton. It is quite evident that that is made the real subject of contention, and upon that subject the information afforded in the published correspondence is somewhat unsatisfactory. Will the noble Earl lay upon the table a copy of the communications which passed between Sir John Bowring and the Chinese Government in 1854 and 1855, and which do not appear in the papers already printed; and also any instructions issued to the Superintendent by the Home Government since 1849 connected with the pressing of the English claim under the treaty to admission into Canton? There must have been some correspondence on that subject since 1849, and it is important, for ascertaining the merits of the question, and for deciding upon whom the responsibility rests, that we should see this correspondence.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONThere can be no objection to lay upon the table the papers referred to by the noble Earl, and I may say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to withhold the fullest information which can be given upon this subject. If I understand the noble Earl rightly, the papers he wishes to have comprise any instructions issued since 1849 as to the necessity of insisting upon the fulfilment of that portion of the treaty which stipulates for our entry into Canton. As I said before, there can be no objection to furnish these papers. It is unfair to attribute to Sir John Bowring the motives which the noble Earl has attributed to him; for, no doubt, the present quarrel arose exclusively out of the affair of the Arrow, although that quarrel has been at the same time rendered more general in consequence of the difficulties made in communicating with the Chinese authorities at Canton.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI think that at a future period I shall be able to show that obtaining admission into Canton has for a long time been a prominent object in the mind of Sir John Bowring, and that he 336 has only waited for a favourable opportunity to effect that object.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) had on a previous occasion referred to the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, as to the validity of the registers to which reference has been made,—would he have any objection to lay those opinions on the table of the House?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that the experience, of the noble and learned Lord would undoubtedly tell him that it would be unprecedented to lay before their Lordships the opinions of the law officers of the Crown.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was aware that such a course was not usual; but he had once and again, after a refusal to produce such papers, seen them laid on their Lordships' table.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTadmitted that it was not the ordinary course; but the noble Earl had placed himself out of the ordinary course by referring, in the course of discussion, to those opinions, and he hoped, therefore, that he would lay them before their Lordships.
§ EARL GREYconceived that there was a difference between a formal Report of the law officers of the Crown on which a colonial ordinance obtained the confirmation of Her Majesty, and an ordinary opinion expressed by them in discharge of their duties; and there might be strong reasons for the production of a Report on which a colonial ordinance was confirmed. He hoped that the noble Earl would include an extract from the despatch of 1847, to which he had referred on a previous occasion, prohibiting offensive measures against the Chinese without express orders from the Home Government.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that that despatch would be produced, together with two or three other despatches upon which it was founded.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that their Lordships already knew substantially what was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and he had little curiosity as to the precise words in which that opinion was conveyed. He did, however, feel great curiosity to see what were the precise terms of the case laid before them; because, in the letter to the Imperial Commissioner Yeh, Mr. Consul Parkes did not state the case truly according to the facts which appeared on the face of the papers laid before the House.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that no particular case had been laid before the law officers of the Crown, bat they had been placed in possession of all the information which the Government had upon the subject.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYasked whether the question of the validity of the Colonial Ordinance had been laid before them?
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONreplied in the negative. The question upon which their opinion had been sought was confined to the case of the Arrow.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that there was one letter about which he felt considerable curiosity, and from which be hoped the noble Earl would lay a longer extract before their Lordships, if he did not produce it in extenso. It was the letter in which the noble Earl, in certain terms, expressed his approval of the conduct of the Consul, the Superintendent, and the Admiral. In the papers before the House there were only about half a dozen lines from that letter. The letter was one in which the noble Earl acknowledged the receipt of the despatch of Sir John Bowring, and he believed was on page 105. He did not expect the noble Earl to produce any instructions which he might have sent for future operations, but he thought that he might produce with safety all that part of the letter which referred to past transactions.
§ THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he had no objection to produce any part of what he had written.
§ LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that unless the noble Earl produced the case, together with the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, he should attach very little weight to those opinions in any future discussion which might take place upon the subject.