The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-10 00:00:00

tish Peet in those waters which brought reeent troubles to

a peaceful cciteln.ion, (Cheers.) This was the telommen-
dation of the represenre of a power which followed the
policy recommended by the hod. !member for Northumber-
land. That Minister's house was burned, :!"-4 no notice taken
of the matter by the authorities, and now he wag ttampelle"J
to admit that the American policy was a false one, and altst

the policy of England was thb only one by which peaceful
relations could be established with Japan, (General ap-
_ _

probation.) Were they to do as the Dutch did ? They gro-
velled on their bellies. Did they prosper? No, their posi-
tion became so intolerable that they were obliged to give up
their trade• (Hear.) Our agents were the best judges of
what should be done. Our trade, in consequence of the
course adopted was rapidly increasing, and of the £7,000,000
and more invested in mercantile pursuits in Japan, more
than half that amount was British. (Hear.) An attempt
had been made to interfere with the silk trade, but in con•
sequence of the firm representations of Col. Neale the Go-
vernment removed the restrictions complained of. Our re-
lations with Japan were purely commercial. Our object was
to carry out the views of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bright)
below the gangway. (Laughter.) If that hon. gentleman,
instead of making exciting speeches in the country, would
endeavour to impress moderation on his hearers, and advise
them to give the Government credit for better intentions,
he would be much more (useful. (Hear.) From what ho
(Mr. Layard) kne s of the East he believed that most of
our difficulties there were created by the British traders.
A host of traders rushed into every market, ,and they con-
sidered that the Government had nothing to do but to sup-
port them in their preposterous pretentious. He could not
agree with the terms of the motion. If the hon. gentleman
withdrew the words casting an imputation on Admiral
Kuper, who had no opportunity of defending himself, he
(Mr. Layard) would not oppose the motion, but if not he
would move the previous question. (Hear, hear,)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE supported the amendment.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER believed the destruction of that
city was intentional, and ventured to prophesy that when
the explanations came from the other side the only feeling
would be one of astonishment that we had ever expected
anything else than what had happened. The idea of shel-
ling the Prince's residence was suggested by the Minister
at home, who ought to have known that it would have been
almost impossible to do that without burning the town.
He thought, however, the house should not endeavour to
apportion the blame, but content itself with a simple ex-
pression of regret; and he recommended Mr. Buxton to as-

sent to the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the conduct
of the Government, and its political and military agents, in
reference to the unhappy calamity that had befallen the
city of Kagosiwa.
Mr. WHITESIDE attached the entire blame to the
Foreign Secretary, upon whose instructions the city had
been bombarded. The question at issue was, whether this
country itself intended to practise those principles of huma-
nity which it was ever so ready to advise all other nations
to adopt. If we maintained such acts as had been done in
this case our laurels would be tarnished, and in vain should
we represent ourselves to the world as the most humane
people on the face of the earth.