The month of May witnessed no advance towards a settlement of Chinese difficulties. A great rebellion was distracting many inland provinces of the gigantic empire; but it did not appear that this could in any way help the English. Commissioner Yeh remained in his official residence at Canton, promising nothing, yielding nothing, and endeavouring to strengthen the city against the English. The Chinese, on the 3d, made an attempt to blow up the Acorn sloop-of-war in the Canton River, by means of a large iron tank filled with gunpowder, which was exploded close to the sloop; and a similar tank was afterwards found close to the Hornet—the first was exploded with little damage; the second was discovered before explosion.
Now occurred the sudden and startling outbreak in India, which wrought a most signal influence on the progress of affairs in China. Before this influence can usefully be traced, it will be necessary to glance briefly at the proceedings in England having reference to the Chinese quarrel.
It will be remembered that Sir John Bowring had incurred the heavy responsibility of commencing hostilities in October 1856, without special Foreign-office instructions; and that Sir Michael Seymour was equally without Admiralty instructions. These officers could not possibly receive an expression either of approval or condemnation, of advice or command, from England, until four or five months after the commencement of the troubles. It was near the close of the year when the British government received particulars of the first operations against Canton; and it was about the beginning of 1857 when the British newspapers and the nation took up the subject in earnest.
Immediately on the opening of the session of parliament in February 1857, ministers were eagerly pressed for information concerning the hostilities in China; because there was a general impression that an unduly severe punishment had been inflicted by Bowring and Seymour on the Chinese for a very small offence. On the 5th of February, the Earl of Ellenborough asked for the production of papers which might throw light on the affair of the lorcha Arrow, and prove whether it was an English or a Chinese vessel. The Earl of Clarendon, after promising the production of all the needful documents, stated that Sir John Bowring had not received any special instructions to demand admission into China; but that his general instructions authorised him ‘to bear in mind the desirableness of obtaining that free access to Chinese ports which was mentioned in the treaty, and more particularly as regarded Canton.’ Whether the means adopted by Bowring to obtain this free access were commendable, was a question on which the Houses of Parliament soon became fiercely engaged. Sir George Bonham, Bowring’s predecessor, had not thought the admission into Canton a matter of great moment; and as Bowring was appointed by the Whigs, the Conservatives soon contrived to make a party question of it. Among the papers made public by the government about this time, was a dispatch written by the Earl of Clarendon to Sir John Bowring on the 10th of December 1856. The earl had just learned all that occurred at Canton between the 8th and the 15th of October; and he expressed an approval of the course pursued by Bowring and Parkes. Referring to voluminous documents which had been transmitted to him, he declared his opinions that the lorcha Arrow had a British master, British flag, and British papers, and was therefore a British vessel under the terms of the existing treaty; that if the Chinese authorities suspected there were pirates among the crew, they should have applied to the English consul, and not have taken the law into their own hands by boarding and violence—in short, he approved of what the British officials had done, so far as concerned the single week’s proceedings which had alone come to his knowledge. Another mail brought over news of the seizure of the junks, and of the forcible entry of Sir Michael Seymour into Commissioner Yeh’s house. This conduct met with the marked and clearly expressed commendation of the Earl of Clarendon, who, in a dispatch written on the 10th of January, complimented Seymour, Bowring, and Parkes on the moderation they had displayed under difficult circumstances.
On the 24th of February, the Earl of Derby moved a series of resolutions in the House of Lords: ‘That this House has heard with deep regret of the interruption of amicable relations between her Majesty’s subjects and the Chinese authorities at Canton; arising out of the measures adopted by her Majesty’s chief-superintendent of trade to obtain reparation for alleged infractions of the Supplementary Treaty of the 8th of October 1843. That, in the opinion of this House, the occurrence of differences on this subject rendered the time peculiarly unfavourable for pressing on the Chinese authorities a claim for the admittance of British subjects into Canton, which had been left in abeyance since 1849; and for supporting the same by force of arms. That, in the opinion of this House, operations of actual hostilities ought not to have been undertaken without the express instructions, previously received, of her Majesty’s government; and that neither of the subjects adverted to in the foregoing resolutions afforded sufficient justification for such operations.’ These resolutions at once threw the whole blame on Sir John Bowring; his ‘measures adopted’ caused the ‘interruption of amicable relations,’ and the House ‘heard with deep regret’ this news. Of course, the ministers could not sanction the resolutions; they had already sent over approval of Bowring’s conduct, and now they must manfully defend him. Hence arose a most exciting debate. The Treaty of 1842, the Supplementary Treaty of 1843, the Convention of 1847—all came into discussion, as well as the documents which had passed between the British and Chinese authorities. It became a party battle. All or nearly all the Whigs defended Sir John; all or nearly all the Conservatives attacked him. The judicial peers on the one side declared that the papers proved the Arrow to be a British vessel; those on the other asserted that the registry of that vessel at Hong-kong had not been so conducted as to render this fact certain. The statesmen on the one side argued that Bowring was right to insist on being admitted into Canton by virtue of the treaty; those on the other contended that the right was not such as to justify him in bombarding the city. The general adherents of the one party believed the statement that the flag of the Arrow had been insultingly hauled down by the Chinese; those of the other credited the Chinese statement that the flag had not been hauled down. And so throughout the debate. It was quite as much a contest of Conservative against Whig, as of Bowring against Yeh. The Earl of Derby made a vehement appeal to the peers, for their condemnation of Sir John’s conduct in going to war without express orders from home; and an earnest exhortation to the bishops ‘to come forward on this occasion and vindicate the cause of religion, humanity, and civilisation from the outrage which had been inflicted upon it by the British representatives in Canton.’ He declared that ‘he should be disappointed indeed if the right reverend bench did not respond to this appeal.’ The legal argument was very strongly contested against the government; Lords Lyndhurst, St Leonards, and Wensleydale all contending that, owing to some irregularities in the registry, the Arrow was virtually a Chinese vessel in October 1856, and that the Chinese authorities had a right to board it in search of pirates. On a division, the resolutions were negatived by 146 against 110—the bishops, notwithstanding the Earl of Derby’s appeal, being as much divided as the other peers.
Canton.
On the 26th the Commons took up the subject, in connection with a resolution proposed by Mr Cobden—‘That this House has heard with concern of the conflicts which have occurred between the British and Chinese authorities in the Canton river; and, without expressing an opinion as to the extent to which the government of China may have afforded this country cause of complaint respecting the non-fulfilment of the treaty of 1842, this House considers that the papers which have been laid upon the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow; and that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China.’ This motion was more important than the one in the Lords, since it led to a dissolution of parliament. The debates extended through four evenings. Sir John Bowring was attacked by Mr Cobden, Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Lord John Russell, Mr Warren, Mr Whiteside, Lord Goderich, Sir John Pakington, Sir F. Thesiger, Mr Sidney Herbert, Mr Roundell Palmer, Mr Milner Gibson, Mr Henley, Mr Roebuck, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Disraeli; while he was defended by Mr Labouchere, Mr Lowe, the Lord Advocate, Admiral Sir Charles Napier, Admiral Sir Maurice Berkeley, the Attorney-general, Sir George Grey, Sir Fenwick Williams ‘of Kars,’ Mr Serjeant Shee, Mr Bernal Osborne, and Lord Palmerston. It was not merely a contest between Liberals and Conservatives; for the Derby party were joined here by the small but influential Peel party; while the names of Russell, Cobden, Goderich, Milner Gibson, and Roebuck will shew to how large an extent the Liberals were dissatisfied with the proceedings in China. The arguments employed were such as have been more than once adverted to—that the Arrow was rather a Chinese than an English vessel; that the Chinese authorities had a right to board it, to search for pirates; that no British flag was hauled down, because none was flying on the lorcha at the time; that the return of the crew by the authorities ought to have satisfied Mr Parkes; that as Commissioner Yeh gave explanations, a demand ought not to have been made upon him for an apology also; that Sir John Bowring ought not to have extended the quarrel so as to include the question of his admission into Canton; that the seizure of the junks was illegal; and that the bombardment of Canton was not only illegal, but ferocious and unbefitting Christian men. Every one of these positions was disputed by the government; nevertheless the House of Commons sanctioned them, or the resolutions which implied them, by a majority of 263 over 247. This vote, arrived at on the 3d of March, determined Lord Palmerston to appeal to the country by dissolving the existing parliament and assembling a new one.
During the interregnum between the two parliaments, public opinion was much divided concerning Chinese affairs. Lord Palmerston was at that time in much favour, and his courage was admired in defending an absent subordinate when fiercely attacked; still it was not without a painful feeling that the nation heard of a great city being bombarded for trivial reasons. Those who most warmly defended Sir John Bowring were those who best knew the faithlessness of the Chinese authorities. By a combination of various causes, direct and indirect, a new House of Commons was elected more devoted to Lord Palmerston than the one which preceded it; and the Chinese war then became a settled question, so far as that branch of the legislature was concerned. During the interval of more than two months, between the adverse vote on the 3d of March and the assembling of the new parliament on the 7th of May, the government were making arrangements for bringing the Chinese difficulty to a satisfactory termination. They told off certain regiments to be sent to China; they appointed General Ashburnham to command them; they sent over the Earl of Elgin with large powers to control the whole of the proceedings; and they arranged with the French government a joint plan of action for obtaining, if possible, free commerce at all the Chinese ports. This scheme of policy was formed and partially put in execution; but the various portions of it were only by degrees made publicly known.
When parliament reassembled in May, numerous questions were put to the ministers in both Houses—concerning the appointment of General Ashburnham; the poisonings at Hong-kong; the treatment of Chinese prisoners; the relations between the East India Company and China in reference to the opium trade; the condition of Hong-kong as a British colony; the emigration of Chinese coolies—and other matters bearing upon the state of affairs in the Chinese seas. It speedily transpired that the French government had appointed Baron Gros, to act with the Earl of Elgin in the political negotiations with the Chinese; that the United States government would also send out a plenipotentiary; and that the Russian governor of the sterile provinces on the banks of the Amoor would be intrusted with similar powers by the court of St Petersburg. If peaceful efforts should fail to bring the Chinese government to amicable relations, war was to be carried on more energetically than before. In addition to the regiments of troops, the British government sent out the Furious steam-frigate, the Surprise and Mohawk dispatch-boats, thirteen steam gun-boats, and a steam transport. The Earl of Elgin left England on the 21st of April; General Ashburnham had started two or three weeks earlier; and the troops had gradually been shipped off as transport for them could be obtained. Certain regiments had been assigned to India, to relieve other regiments which had been long stationed there; but it was now proposed to send them first to China, whence, after settling the troubles, they might be transferred to India.