The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-05 00:00:00

TARIFF BETWEEN AUSTRIA. AND THE

ZOLLVEREIN.

In reply to Mr. S. FITZGERALD,

Mr. M. GIBSON said that the Government had been
made aware of the project of a traffic between Austria and
the Zoilverein, bat did not think it in any way affected
British interests.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL AND THE
PENAL SERVITUDE BILL.;

In reply to an HON. MEMBER,
Lord. PALMERSTON said that it was proposed to
proceed with those bills this evening, the Government
Annuities Bill to be taken first. The army estimates
wouli not be proceeded with on Monday.
PUBLIC PROXIES VOTING PAPERS.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply.
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS moved that the stamp on proxy
papers, used for the purpose of voting in public companies,
associations, and charities, being a tax which impedes the
exercise of a franchise, might conveniently be reduced
to ld.

Some discussion ensued, but the motion was withdrawn.
THE PROCEEDINGS AT SOOCHOW.
Colonel SYKES called the attention of the house to
the following resolution, passed unanimously at a meeting
of the Commis representing European nations at Shanghai
on the 16th December, 1863, at the British Consulate,
moved by Mr. Markham, the British acting Consul, and
seconded by Mr. Keswick, Danish Consul, " that this meet.
ing, as representing the whole foreign community, views
with unqualified disapprobation the late proceedings of the
Footai at Soochow as an act of extreme treachery,abhorrent
to human nature, calculated to withdrawn from the Imperial
cause the sympathies of Western nations, and the aid of
the gallant officers who have hitherto assisted them," and
asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with this i
renewed instance of perfidy in Imperial officials, it is in.
tended by her Majesty's Government to pass unnoticed
further vio;ations of the instructions of the Foreign
Office, to British authorities in China, to be strictly
neutral in the civil war which has so long raged in China.
The hon. and gallant member said that a force, consisting
of 200 men of the Gith Regiment, 100 men of the Royal
Artillery, and 100 men of the 22d Native Infantry, under
Major Murray, R.A., together with 200 13eloochees, had
been thrown into two cities beyond the 30 mile boundary of
the treaty ports. The garrisoning of those two cities by the
British had enabled Major Gordon to advance with his en-
tire force to Soochow. This place had been taken by com-
mand of the major-general commanding the forces in China,
Major-Gen, Brown. The house had repeatedly heard the
Prime Minister, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
hffaita, and the Secretary of the Admiralty declare that
atrial Majestys Government had issued instructions that
het neutrality was to be maintained in China beyond
0 mile limit from the treaty ports, which it was
bought necessary to maintain in security against the effects
the contest between the rcbele and the Tartar Govern-

meat. The moment he had received that communication
from China, knowing that others had been issued from the
Foreign-office, and recollecting the statements that lad been
made in that house, he had immediately ad trefaed Earl
Russell, bringing to his notice this violation his orders,
and stating that he (Col. Sykes) should cons rit his duty
to bring that violation of his orders by M lur• Gen. Brown
before the notice of the House of Commons. It was in ful-
filment of that pledge that he now addressed himself to the
house. The butchery referred to at the meeting of the con-
suls had been perpetrated by perfidy. Perhaps the hon.
gentleman, the Under Secretary, would tell the house, as
he had told him (Col. Sykes) that this butchery was an ex-
aggeration—that he had heard it from Major Gordon. But
Major Gordon had not witnessed those butcheries, having
been almost a prisoner on the 4th and bth December, and
having no means of preventing them, from his having sent
his troops back to their headquarters. Great results often
followed very small causes. So it had been in this case ;
for if Major-General Brown had followed his instructions
and not garrisoned those two towns, one of which was 45
miles and the other 100 miles from Shanghai, Major Gor-
don could not have withdrawn his whole force, and could
not have made such an impression upon Soochow as led to
the surrender of the place by treachery, in which he was
sorry to say Major Gordon himself had taken part. The
honourable and gallant member then proceeded, with the
aid of several extracts from Chinese newspapers and
correspondence, to detail the circumstances attend-
ing the surrender of Soochow. That city being
invested by the Imperial forces, part of which consisted of
disciplined Chinese and Europeans under Major Gordon,
the garrison and inhabitants it would appear, had been in-
duced, after repulsing several attacks, to capitulate on
the understanding that their lives and property were
to be saved. That capitulation, he thought, had been
brought about, to a great extent, by the belief of the rebel
chiefs in the statement of Major Gordon that the promise of
the Imperial Viceroy or Footai should be kept. So far,
however, from this, on the chiefs surrendering they were
at once decapitated, and possession of the city gates being
obtained, the Imperial troops poured into the city and plun-
dered and massacred for a period of 20 days. The treachery
at Soochow had led to the slaughter of no less, according to
one account, than 30,000 man, women, and children. It
might perhaps be supposed by some that the affair was
accidental ; but in truth it was part and parcel of the cruel
and treacherous habits which had always characterised the
Tartar Government. All of us, unhappily, had painful
recollections of the tortures indicted upon some of our
officers on their way to Pekin. After enumerating other
instances of cruelty on the Chinese, the hon. gentleman
concluded by expressing his regret that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had sanctioned the employment of British officers
in the Imperial armies.

Lord PAL NIERSTON—Sir, I think that, on the gene-
ral question, I concur entirely with my hon. and gallant
friend, for my opinion is that it is for our interest that the
rebellion should cease, and that the authority of the Em-
peror should be maintained or re-established in China.
It cannot be to the advantage of those who trade with
China that that country should be the scene of civil war.
If there were any possibility of the rebels succeeding in
dethroning the Emperor, and establishing some other
Government in lieu of his, it might then be a matter of
choice between the two Governments. In that case persons
might, according to the particular views they took, think
it desirable or not that the present dynasty should be
maintained, or that the rebel dynasty is one which
should be put in its place. But there is no chance of it.
The rebellion has not in itself the elements of success or
organisation. I think, therefore, it is necessary for the
commercial interests of this country that order should be
re-established, so that commerce may be carried on. It
was for that purpose that permission was given to Captain
Osborn and Mr. Lay to organise a naval force for the pur-
pose of co-operating with the Imp( rial Government ; and it
was with that view that an order in Council was passed
permitting British subjects to join the service of the Empe-
ror of China. Unfortunately, neither of these arrangements ,
have answered their purpose. The expedition of Captain
Osborn has returned, he having had differences with the
Imperial Government. Captain Osborn did not think it
consistent with his duty and his honour to continue in the
1 service of that Government. With regard to the expedition
under Captain Osborne, which entirety failed, the order in
council authorising it was revoked—(hear, hear)—and as
the conduct of the Chinese officials was so disgraceful, the
other order in Council was also revoked—(hear, hear).—
leaving it to the prerogative of the Crown to grant permis-
sion to individuals, if they think proper, to enter the service
of the Emperor of China, upon application in each case by
the individual concerned. Nothing earl be more deserving
of condemnation than the conduct of the Footai of Soochow.
I am afraid I must admit that all nations have their pecu-
liar faults, but there are two faults with which we must
reproach the Chinese—the one is cruelty, and the other is
perfidy. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) They have certainly
shorn, on this occasion, most lamentable instances of both,
We don't exactly know what was done in consequence of
barbarous act of treachery. Colonel Gordon, according to
our accounts, was only waiting to know what course the
Imperial Government would take. He made representations
to Sir F. Bruce, who no doubt would truly represent the
matter to Prince Kung ; the result of that communication
is still unknown ; but let us hope that adequate punish
meat will be inflicted upon the Footai for his barbarous
conduct on that occasion. That conduct we are entitled
to resent, because Colonel Gordon was made the unwil-
ling instrument to lure the people into the power of the
Footai, and was consequently made the instrument of those
barbarous executions. Not only should we endeavour to
prevent any further acts of that kind, but it was our duty to
make strong representations ur on the point. At the same
time, I can only repeat what I have already said, that her
Majesty's Government deeply lament and indignantly con-
demn the conduct of the Footai. 'We don't know what the
Chinese Government have done on the subject. There are
some papers to which my hon. and gallant friend referred,
and these will be laid on the table in the course of a couple
of days. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WHITE said he was happy the noble lord had in-
formed the house that the two orders in council had been
revoked ; for ho presumed that no British subject would in
future participate in hostilities against the Taepings.
Whatever the defects of the rebels might have been, the
conduct of the Imperialists was equally reprehensible in the
conduct of the war; and it was much to be deprecated that
her Majesty's Government had given any countenance to
the Chinese Government against the Taepings. English
merchants and others in communication with China regret-
ted very much that her Majesty's Government had not car-
ried out their nen-intervention policy in that country as
well as in their negotiations with other nations; and there
could be no doubt that if such policy had been pursued, the
provinces of China which were now disturbed and hive-
verislaed would be in a condition of prosperity. The recent
proceedings in China had brought discredit upon the cha-
racter of this nation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr, KINNAIRD could not agree with the hon. member
as to his views of the policy ot her Majesty's Government.
That policy was one for the protection of the ports, and con-
sequently the beat means of securing British interests.
BUILDING OF CONFEDERATE SHIPS IN
BRITISH PORTS,
Mr. LEFEVRE drew attention to the come) pursued by
agents of the Confederate States of America in fitting out
vessels ot war, and enlisting seamen in the porta of this
country—especially the Florida and Alabama—in violation
of the laws of neutrality. He admitted that the Govern-
ment had honestly enforced the provisions of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, but he thought they should have adopted
the same course with regard to these vessels that they had
afterwards taken in the case of the steam rams at Liverpool.
He contended that it was both our duty and our interest to
prevent such proceedings in English ports, and that to meet
the circumstances of which he complained our municipal
law ought to be amended. He invited the Government,
therefore, to inform the house what steps they had adopted
in the matter, and moved for any correspondence that
might have taken place with Confederate agents in this
country in relation thereto.
Lord R. MONTAGU said that the Alabama and the
other vessels had been built as mere commercial specula-
tions, and no hostile intent had been proved against them
to bring them within the action of our municipal laws.
With regard to the Alabama, it was not for us but the Fede-
rals to fit out a ship for her capture.
Mr. BAXTER expressed his concurrence in the views
enunciated by Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. TAYLOR argued that
the Alabama and the other Confederate vessels should have
been stopped, even though the Government had to come for
a bTilhleofsionLdeimenuoß.
ityincGoEnsNeqEitA
consequence.
The
said that, although the
opposite taunts which had been levelled against the Go-
vernment might be left to answer each ether, he desired t•
reply to the case which had been urged
against' them for
fi
having allowedrespect
to the Florida. Before the Florida left
our shores the Government had no sufficient information of
her destination being for the Confederates. In the next
place, the Florida was detained at Nassau, and an inquiry
was held with respect to her in the Consular Court, which
ended in her acquittal. And as to the Florida, he was
also to state that there was no reason to be-
lieve that she had been manned in this country ; in-
deed, it appeared that she was manned from the
Confederate States, although there wore some Englishmen
among her crew. It was impossible for them, therefore, to
have stopped the Florida, or to have treated her otherwise
than as a properly commissioned vessel belonging to a re-
cognised belligerent. In the case of the Georgia they had
no sufficient evidence of her being intended for the Confe-
derates before she left our shores. But they had since re-
ceived information that sho had been .nanned in great mea-
sure at Liverpool, and iu fact such other information as had
induced the Government to institute a prosecution against
the Messrs. Jones and Co., of Liverpool, who were carrying
on an organised business of the kind. To come now to the
case of the Alabama. No doubt that case differed from the
others; and it likewise differed from the case of the Alex-
andria, which was before the courts. The Alabama had
what might be called exclusive warlike equipments—at least,
to a certain extent; upon her decks there were sockets for
guns, and these appeared to him to be warlike equipments.
Moreover, there was evidence before the law officers of the
Crown which showed that the Alabama was manned at
Liverpool by agents of the Confederate States, for the pur-
pose of fighting the Federals. The then law officers of the