The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-01 00:00:00

POLAND.

Mr. HENNESSY wished to know, if certain despatches
relative to Poland which had passed between Count Wale-
ski and Count Persigny, w3uld be laid on the table of the
house, and whether they were authentic.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, as he understood the
question, it appeared despatches were sent to the Prussian
ambassador, but whether these were authentic or not he
could not state.

Mr. HENNESSY said he considered the answer most
unsatisfactory, and would move that extracts of these
despatches should be laid on the table of the house.

CHINA.

Mr. COBDEN moved the following resolution :—" That
in the opinion of this house, the policy of non-intervention
by force of arms in the internal political affairs of foreign
countries, which we profess to observe in our relations
with the States of Europe and America, should be observed
in our intercourse with China." He said that all parties in
China, including the natives and Sir Frederick Biuce,
oar representative, were dissatisfied with the policy this
country had pursued towards that important empire.
He contended that the policy of this country was defective
in every element, and so far from being conducive to the
interests of our commerce had a tendency and result directly
the reverse, and he quoted statistics to show that the tra :e
with China was less extensive than that with Egypt, not-
withstanding the immense population and facilities afforded
by the former country for the purchase of our articles of
production. The fact was that China was the only country
where we endeavoured to force our trade by violence, and
the result was that in that direction our trade failed instead
of being in a flourishing condition. What was the reason
of that result ? It merely arose from a mistaken notion
that, In order to extend trade with the Chinese,
we should force on them our political connections.
He condemned ministerial statements as being calculated
to mislead, and accused Lord Palmerston as being a master
of the language necessary to carry out that object,
and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard),
as being one of his most apt pupils. (Laughter.) His
observations applied to both parties of the house
when in the Ministry. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He contrasted the policy suggested by the late Duke of
Wellington in reference to China, which was one of kindness
and forbearance, to that adopted recently by this country,
which was the very opposite. The hon. member went at con-
siderable length into arguments in support of hie views, and
was listened to with great attention by a house crowded
on both sides. Be stated in conclusion that his object was
to obtain a promise from Government that there should be
a committee appointed to inquire into the nature of our
relations with China and Japan.
Mr B. COCHRANE seconded the motion.
Mr LAYARD said it was somewhat curious that a ques-
tion like this, which had during the present session been
More frequently before the house than almost any ether,
should have received so little attention from hon. members.
Theyalight all congratulate themselves on the speech which
they had heard from his hon. friend, who was always ori-
ginal in his views,and on the present occasion more original
than usual. $e
(Mr Layard) would do his best to answer
his hon. friend ; and first he would remark that he thought
the teason why on many occasions it was difficult to get
together a house to listen to a debate on China was not
that the Government was deairona to count out, but because
members felt the deep responsibility they would incur by
dictating a policy to the Government, and forcing them to
pursue a particular course of action. If the Government had
followed the advice !yen ay several members of that house
on the Chinese question, most disastrous results would have
ensued, not only to the interests of trade, but also to the
lives of a large number of British subject,. Indeed, those
hon. gentlemen themselves must have felt this, because
they always avoided pressing the house to
a division on
any definite resolution. It was often said in that house
that the duty of her Majesty's Government was simply to
protect the treaty ports and defend their trade and com-
merce ; but that was a question of degree, and not a ques-
tion of policy. The hon. gentleman who brought forward
this motion introduced a new policy, and declared that
they should entirely abandon the present policy in China,
and that. all direct relations with China should cease.
That was an original view, which might be expected from
his hon. friend's great capacity and knowledge; but it was
an opinion from which he should dissent, and one which
he wou'd show it was impossible to pursue. He confessed
he had heard with surprise the remarks of his hon. friend,
that there had been a decrease in the trade of this country

with China, for the returns of the declared and real value of
the exports and imports proved a remarkable increase in
that trade during the last few years—the only exception
being a diminution in the cotton trade, consequent open
cotton famine. His hon. friend had that evening started a
new and original policy, but the remarks with which he
sought to enforce it were not very Logical. s hon. friend
referred to the example of Singapore, established as a free
port by the exertions of Sir Stamford Raffles, and suggested
that her Majesty's Government should pursue the same
course, and, instead of having any commercial intercourse
with the Chinese in the rivers, establish treaty ports. But
if this country wanted to convert Chinese cities into free
ports the consent of the Chinese Government should beob.
tained. The fact was that Shanghai had virtually beeotne
a free port, and when Hong Kong had been ceded to this
country it was only after having defeated the Chinese that
the concession had been obtained. But if the Chinese Goa.
vernraent chose to withhold their consent, what weal the
course then to be taken ? If it could not be obtained by
indirect negotiation, what other means where they to
adopt ? But his hon. friend forgot that there were other
Powers represented in China as well as England, and what-
ever demands this r.,onntry made would be preferred also by
those Powers. Her Majesty's Government had often been
charged avi.'da having assisted the Chinese Government
against the Taepings. (Hear.) They had so far assisted as
to prevent the Taepings from entering the treaty ports and
destroying British produce. Notwithstanding what had been
often stated by his hon. and gallant friend behind him
(Colonel Sykes), his own impression was that the Taepings
were mere marauders, who had no respect for treaties, and
that if they had been allowed to go into the treaty ports the
British trade there would have been annihilated. Admiral
Hope, who bad been somewhat sanguine in this respect, had,
with some others, tried the experiment in China, but it had
signally failed. With regard to the 30 mile radius hon. gent-
tlemen appeared to run away with the idea that each
treaty port was to have a radius of thirty miles.
But this was a mere military line, which had
been pointed out for the necessary defence of
the towns—no principle had been laid down beyond that
necessary one, that large centres of commerce should be
protected against hordes of marauders who were going to
destroy their trade. It was true the 30-mile radius had
proved a farce. He was not going to defend the conduct of
those officers who had thought proper to exceed this limit ;
but he might observe that her Majesty's Government had
often expressed censure upon them. His hon. friend had
alluded in the course of his speech to Sir Frederick Bruce,
and stated that his policy differed from the policy of her
Majesty's Government. There had never been any difference
of opinion between her Majesty's Government and Sir Fre-
derick Bruce with respect to the policy to be pursued in
China. Over and over again he had borne testimony in
that house to the great ability and tact of Sir F. Bruce in
the conduct of negotiations in China. He would read an
extract from a despatch to show that, even upon the subject
of the Employment of foreign officers by the Chinese Go-
vernment, Sir F. Bruce was in accord with her Majesty's
Government. Then, had their relations with the Chinese
Government improved ? He ventured to think that the
existence of that very correspondence between the two Go-
vernments was a proof of improved relations between the
two countries. He believed that the acceptance by the
Chinese Government of Lord Elgin's mission was one of
the most important concessions ever made by China to Eng-
land. And then as regarded the treaty with Japan, England
was not the first to enter into commercial relations with
Japan. The United States of America and Russia were
both before them—and what would the country have thought
if Russia and America had been allowed to enter into com-
mercial relations with Japan while England refused to do
anything of the sort ? It was all very well to talk about
the Taepings, and about their being subjected to a
foreign dynasty. Bat the actual state of facts was
nothing of the kind. The present dynasty, so far from
being unpopular, was looked upon as having conferred
great benefits upon the country. Not a single Chinaman
had joined the Taepings. In conclusion, he would appeal
to the house whether, after the explanations which had been
given, the Government could have followed any other policy
in China.

Lord NAGS said the policy which he and those who
thought with him advocated with respect to China was a
policy of strict neutrality on the part of all our employtlis,
both military and diplomatic, which would prevent them
from meddling at all in Chinese affairs. For the last two or
three years their policy had been directly the reverse of
that; and if now they were compelled to fall back upon a
policy of neutrality, that was because they had tried a dif-
ferent policy, and it had c^mpletely failed. The British
Government had been imposed upon by the representations
made to them, and it wag entirely owing to their neglect,
and the carelessness with which they had sent forth that
expedition, that British authority had been exposed to a
slight in China by the contemptuous dismissal of Captain
Osborn. The Government of that ccuntry was centrally
strong and locally weak, and at the present time Captain
Gordon was not, as was supposed, in the service of the Em-
peror of Chine, but was in the service of the Foo•tai of
Shanghai, who habitually set aside all orders he received
from Pekin. It was a disgrace to her Majesty's Govern-
ment that an officer in her ➢lejesty's uniform should he in
command of such a force, and should be a witness of such
atrocities as had been perpetrated at Foo-choo.

1 Mr. B. COCHRANE also censured the policy of the Go-
vernment, and observed that he should very much like to
see a debtor and creditor account prepared, showing the
losses which the country had sustained on the tne hand,
and the advantages it had acquired on the other. He
thought the balance so struck would supply an instructive
and suggestive lesson.
Mr. LIDDELL instanced the vast diminution which had
taken place in the production of silk in the districts which
were the scene of the Teeping war as a consequence of the
policy pursued by her Majesty's Government of espousing
the Imperial cause. Referring to the withdrawal of the
order in council permitting English officers to take set vice
with the Chinese Government, the hon. gentleman ex
pressed a hope that it was not only prospective but retro-
spective, so as to apply to CaptaiLs Gordon and Cocke, and
other officers who were already in the employ of the Em-
peror.

Mr. GREGSON approved of the policy of the Govern-
ment, and maintained the absolute necessity of holding and
defending the treaty ports.

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE dissented from the recommenda-
tion of Mr Cobden to withdrawfrom the treaty ports and esta-
blish a series of free ports along the coast of China. Hs
thought that the Government were bound to provide some
means of repressing the disorders and irregularities which
prevailed there, and endeavour to pave the way for some
amelioration of the system of government in China.

Mr. WHITE believed that the continuance of the policy
hitherto followed in China would act most disastrously on
British interests and British honour in that part of the world.
Mr. KINGLAKE, referring to an expression made use
of by the noble lord (Naas), to the effect that Captain S.
Osborn had ignominiously withdrawn, said that although
he himself understood the meaning intended to be conveyed,
he wished to afford the noble lord an opportunity of making
clear the expression in his speech.
Lord NAAS said he had no intention of saying anything
in the least disrespectful to Captain Osborn, whose conduct
was beyond all praise. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES denied that the policy agreed upon by
the Ministers of Russia, France, and America was identi-
cal with that pursued by her Majesty's Government. In
fact, it was just the reverse. The Taepings had been re-
presented as desolators of the country, but if that were
really the case, how did it happen that the districts occu-
pied by them had furnished us with nine-tenths of the silk
which we obtained from China?
Lord PALMERSTON—There is this remarkable cha-
racter in the discussion, that while my hon. friend the
member for Rochdale has taken a very wide and large view
of the question, according to his notion of it, those who had
followed him on the other side of the House had taken a
very narrow and combined view, and had limited their ob •
servations to the recent transactions of the Government in
regard to their policy in China. It is almost unnecessary
to express an opinion with regard to the expedition of Cap•
tain Sherard Osborn, and the employment of Major Gordon
and the others, because he had stated upon a former occasion
that the orders in Council under which these afters were
employed had been recalled, and there is no intention to
renew them. Therefore that policy is entirely at an end,
at the same time that I entirely differ from those who con-
demn it. There was nothing ignominious either in the
original undertaking of Captain Osborn, or on the grounds
on which he declined to continue the service. On the
contrary, the whole conduct of Captain Osborn from be-
ginning to end did him the highest possible honour and
did the country honour also. At the same time, these
measures have failed, and I am sorry for it; but they
have failed, not from any fault of those who planned
or those who engaged in them, but they failed
simply from the effects of those international jealousies
which are too apt to prevail in a country like China. my
non. friend the member for Rochdale, on the other hand,
blames the whole policy of the Government of England in
respect of our intercourse with China—not simply the con-
duct of a single administration. But, now, was our inter-
course with China sought for simply by the Government ?
I admit at once that it the monopoly of the East India Com-
pany bad been continued, none of those wars would have
occurred. In that case our intercourse with China would
have been very restricted; there would have been no na•
tional honour at stake,and the Company would have thought
it better to submit to any indignity rather than break off
with the Imperial Government. But it was not within the
choice of the English Government to continuo the monopoly;
the whole country cried out against it. and therefore it was
abolished. Then ensued a series of conflicts with Lhe
Chinese Government, which brought us down to the
treaty of Pekin. The hon. member for Rochdale was
very sentimental upon the objecti-aas made by the
Chinese Government to allowing a British resident to go
to Pekin; but 1 take leave to say that, if there had
been a British resident at Pekin at the outset of these die.
I take the larger view,
putes none of these wars would have taken place. Then
and I say the house and the country
ought to consider, not the particular expediency of one in-
dividual measure in the cuurse of our policy with respect to
China, but they ought to consider tha great features of our
policy. I quite concur in the opinion that eur object in
China is simply trade. But then trade must bo protected
by treaties. But was the extension of trade by treaties a

matter of indifference to the nation ? Let me recall to the
house the great dellght which was felt throughoit the
country 'Upon the conclusion of Sir H. Pottinge's treaty.
Indeed, I remember myself endeavooit!ng to abate the exul-
tation into which the hones and the country was thrown
upon the ocoaeielt 'arthat treaty being announced. I very
much tegfc'et 'with the hon. and gallant officer on the other
ego in the description he gave of the Taepings; but there
can be no doubt, in waging such a tar as this, there will
be guilt on both aides, thotgh we must admit the balance
of crime to be tcatly on the side of the Taepings. (A
laugh.) When that war will come to an end, it is be.:rcnd
the power of any man in this country to ptedict. We
know very well that for three thousand years China has
been the seat of turbelett disturbances, revolts, and rebel-
lions; and thnterure it would be sanguine to expect an early
terreivation of the war. But, sir, somebody said our objects
lb the war were selfish. Well, selfish no doubt they are, in a
national point of view. But those who think this question
relates solely to the particular merchants who export to
China and eche have their establishments there take a nar-
row and very limited view of the matter. Those merchants
are merely the outfall by which the thousand rills of the
country find their way to the great markets of the world.
Those merchants are the means by which are supported the
industries of hundreds of thousands of the working classes.
Therefore, those persons who would have this change of
policy, to narrow our foreign markets, and lessen the
breadth of our trade, are taking the bread out of the mouths
of the working classes of this country, and depriving them
of the means of gaining a livelihood, (No, no, and hear,
hear.) As soon as we cease to trade with foreign countries,
the industries of those classes are stopped, and they are de-
prived of the assistance they would obtain from the mar-
kets for their industries in those countries. Therefore I
do not admit the justice of the expression that ours has
been a selfish policy, in the sense it was used. I say it is
the duty of the Government to provide, not for the mere
extension of the revenue, nut for the develop-
ment of the general industry and prosperity of
the country, and to enable the industrious classes
to pursue their calling with advantage and suc-
cess, and make themseives happy and prosperous at
home. I say, then, that the policy the Governments
of this country have pursued from the time of the East
India Company to the present time has been successful. I
am persuaded that our relations with the central Govern-
ment of China are now so firmly established as not likely to
be shaken, and that by those relations we shall find the
commerce of the country annually increasing; and if we
should be able to get an unrestricted commerce with so large
a population as that of China, it would be of immense ad-
vantage to the increasing prosperity of the country.
Mr. BRIGHT said the noble lord was more sanguine
than the house generally was on this question ; for,
looking over the debate which had occurred that. night, it
appeared to him that, with little exception, there had been
expressed nothing but condemnation of all that the
noble lord had done and approved of with regard to China
within the last thirty years. The honourable member for
Lancaster (Mr. Gregeon) had expressed that sort of con-
fidence in the noble lord that might have been reasonable
in him towards a person older than himself some sixty or
sixty-five years ago. (A laugh.) He had followed the
noble lord with a placidity that was perfectly charming,
and, Le supposed with a view of following the noble lord,
the honourable member had been touting in the City
for China merchants who followed the policy of the
noble lord. He understood there were from 120 to
150 English merchants in China, some in extensive busi-
ness, and some not very considerable. Well, the policy of
the noble lord ordered that there should be one ship of war
from this country to support each three of those merchants.
(Heir, hear.) Thal was a state of things with regard to
our commerce which did not exist in any other part of the
world. No doubt the merchants had a stake in that coun-
try, but the people of England had a stake also ; and, look-
ing back to the last 30 years, there was scarcely any portion
of the history of this country of which they could less be
proud than of our relations with China. Not only had the
policy of the Government been condemned from both sides
of that house, but it was evident that Sir Frederick Bruce
himself was disgusted with it. We were, in fact, getting
into a state of difficulty and mismanagement, from which
nobody seemed to know exactly how we were to be extricated
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord had admitted, as part of his
defence that night, that everything he had said in regard to
our more recent policy had been a failure; and though, as
he said, the failure of the plane might be no blame to the
Government, the house would probably think that the con-
ception of plans so absurd and impossible was a blame to
them. (Hear, hear.) Then the noble lord had treated
them to some observations on these Chinese marauders.
The noble lord said the natural history of a war tetween all
highly-civilised and semi-barbarous nations was, that un•
pleasantness arose, disputes were occasioned, wars followed
disputes, and afterwards were carried on for such a length
of time that the highly civilised nation had been battered
pretty nearly to pieces by the semi-barbarous nation ;
then the semi barbarous nation became entirely submis-
sive, and nothing could positively be more friendly and
harmonious than the future relations of the two nations.
(Laughter.) That was what the noble lord told them,
and that was what he expected to be the result of his
policy. lie believed that our breaking through the se-
clusion of the capital city of Pekin had shattered the whole
political and social system of an empire containing one-third
or quarter of the whole population of the globe. If he were
the noble lord, he should not speak boaetingly of a policy
wbich had brought about such a grave and disastrous result
to so large a portion of the human race. The noble lord had
even an audacity beyond that ; for he had charged the hon.
member for Rochdale, by implication, with not having any
regard for the condition of the interests of the industrious
clams of this country. The noble lord attempted to per-
suade the house that the Ulna trade was of so great im •
portance to the working classes of this country as to make
it worth while to indulge in the policy which he had carried
out. The truth was, the profit of the export China trade
for thirty years past had not paid the cost of the wars which
bad taken place, and if the same course was pursued with
regard to the rest of our foreign trade, we should require
2,000 ships of war for its guardianship. The policy of the
noble lord for some time had been a total failure, and he
hoped he would for once come to the conclusion that he was
not infallible, and that the united good sense and wisdom
which sprang from experience, as shown by the discussion
in the house that night, was rather that which ought to
govern a great question of foreign policy like this, than the
prejudices which the noble lord had so passionately cherished
for thirty years, that they seemed at last to have got the
better of his reason and his judgment. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn.

Mr Alderman SALOMONS obtained leave to bring in a bill
to facilitate the traffic of the metropolis by improving the
communications across the river Thames, and Mr HANKEY
a Bill for defraying out of fees a portion of the expense of
carrying into effect the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.