The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-21 00:00:00

CLAIMS OF CAPTAIN GRANT.

Colonel NORTH moved that this house would, upon
Monday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of
an humble address to be presented to her Majesty, praying
that she would be graciously pleased to consider the ser-
vices of Captain Grant, and order him some suitable reward
for his services in improving the system of cooking in the
army, and effecting a considerable saving in the public
expenditure for fuel.
The Marquis of HARTINGT ON said that the committee
which had been appointed to inquire into this subject had,
after careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the
saving which Captain Grant alleged to have effected in
regard to the fuel consumed in the cooking for the army was
not justified by facts. The committee had offered Captain
Grant the amount he claimed, namely, £4,000, although it
was their opinion that circumstances did not justify their
paying him that claim. However, Captain Grant claimed
more than he originally required.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion of Captain North 7O
Against
Majority —3l
THE AFFAIRS IN CHINA.
Mr. BANTER drew the attention of the house to the
present position of affairs in China, and condemned the
policy which the Government of this country had pursued in
reference to interference with the domestic hostilities in
China. He considered the instructions sent out by Earl
Russell to the British representatives in China as not being
justified by the circumstances of the times, and he accused
the Government of having departed from the professions of
neutrality by endeavouring to maintain the Tartar
dynasty, which was obnoxious to the Chinese people
generally. The hon. member cited the authority
of Sir Frederick Bruce in order to show that our policy was
merely calculated to promote in reality the designs of Rus-
sia. The hon. member concluded by asking the noble lord
at the head of the Government if he proposed to adopt such
a course of policy as would protect the commerce of this
country in China, and to extend it without interfering in
the domestic difference of the people of that country.
Lord PALMERSTON said that his hon. friend who had
asked him the question had stated that he had read all the
Blue Books having reference to this subject, but he must
say that he did not consider that his hon. friend had
derived any great information from his studies. (Laughter.)
There were many mistakes into which people even of
enlarged minds were betrayed by confining themselves
to general and unqualified principles. Such was the ease
of his hon. friend, who, in his anxiety to main-
tain inviolable the principle, seemed to forget there
were such things as treaty rights, which the Govern-
ment of any country were bound to maintain. He
referred to the intervention of this country in the
affairs of Greece, Belgium, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and the
war in the Crimea. We interfered in those events which
led to the Crimean war, and 1 do not thick any man will
say we were unsuccessful. We interfered in the affairs of
China. And why ? Because our treaty rights were in
danger, and our national interests were at stake. How in-
consistent is the beginning of my hon. friend's speech with
the conclusion. He said he would never consent to be a
party to throwing on the taxpayers of this country any
burden for the sake of protecting the trade of China.
Mr. BAXTER—I beg the noble lord's pardon. I said
for the purpose of upholding the Mantchoo Government in

China.
Lord PALMERSTON—I beg pardon. The hcn. mem-
ber said, " If I have property in China I do not think it
right that the taxpayers of this country should be put to
the expense of maintainer g my property in China." ,
Mr. BAXTER —I said that was an open question.
Lord PALMERSTON—Ah " That is an open ques-
tion." (A laugh.) Now, the concluding question he puts
to me is no question at all, because he asks me whether the
Government will confine themselves to maintaining the
treaty ports, and intimates that he would be in favour of the
maintaining of the British interests in those ports. But,
sir, what has been the history of our interference in China ?
See the inconsistency of those commercial gentlemen ?
They are constantly urging the Government to make tree,.
ties with foreign countries, and to extend the range of our
commercial intercourse, It was only the other day I re-
ceived a deputation from the manufacturing districts
urging upon the Government the institution of a different
organisation in the Foreign-office and the Board of Trade,
for the purpose of enabling the Government more widely to
extend the commercial relations of this country. And very
rightly that feeling is entertained, because everybody must
know that on the extension of our commerce depend in a
very great measure the welfare of the country, the abun-
dance of the revenue, and the strength and prosperity of the
nation. Therefore, so far from meriting the censure which
ley hon. friend, as a commercial man, has passed upon
us, we are deserving of praise, because we act in accord-
ance with the wishes and desires of the country. (Hear,)
it was long felt that China would open up a vast field of
commercial enterprise. It has done so, and it is this, among
other shines, which has enabled us to meet that, obstruction
in our commerce and manufacture which the unfortunate
struggle in America has occasioned. (Hear, hear,) My hon.
friend says the Chinese are a cruel people. I have myself
eaii in this house, that the nature of the Chinese people is
characterised by cruelty and perfidy. I quite admit that,
but these qualities are not confined to the Imperialists, but
are shared by the Taepings. My hon. friend alludes to the
rnaesicre at Soochow. There was no massacre at Soochow;
it was, however, a treacherous proceeding, and I will net
not justify what they did, but will only state the explanation
they put forward. What happened the other day ? We
have fresh evidence of the cruelty of the Taepings in
the capture of a steamer called the Firefly, which they
seized and carried off; and it was stated that four or five
of the crew were roasted by the Taepings, [Col. STY:ES-
-No.] I believe their bodies were found in a charred state
with the Taepings. But in China those people who take
to making profit by supplying arms and ammunition send
home in high-flown terms the merits of the Taepings. All
other persons bore witness to the atrocities of the Taepeic
rebellion. Villages were laid waste and the people re-
duced to a state of starvation. Only the other day it was
stated that they were obliged to eat human flesh as a last
resource for sustaining life. Is that a state of things con-
ducive to the interests of British commerce ? Is that a
state of things which we ought to allow to exist in our
treaty ports? My hon. friend admits that, as far as the
radius of the treaty ports extends—a distance of 30 miles—
we are justified, and it is our duty to keep those Taepings
from violating the treaty. However much my hon. friend
has studied the blue books, he has not studied with equal
ardour the history of China. He talks of the Imperial
dynasty as one recently established in the country, and
therefore not having any hold on the population of the
country. If lam not misinformed, I think it has existed
about 500 years ._

Colonel S YK-ES --- 250.
Lord PALM ERSTON—WeII, I think when a dynasty
exists in a country 250 years, 'England, at least, ought to
admit that that dynasty has a good hold on the popular in-
terest, and ought not to be called a foreign dynasty.
(Laughter.) To come to the point, I say it is greatly to the
interest of this country to maintain this treaty, and to exer-
cise such powers as that treaty with China gives us. Ati,,ar
the war with China began, Sir James Graham, a sagacious
man, warned this house of the danger that must arise from
entering into warfare with one-third of the human race.
But I say what must be the advantage to this country if
we can enter into commercial relations with one-third of the
human race? Therefore I say it is to the interest of this
country to establish such intercourse with China. My hon.
friend says the dynasty is tottering to its fall ; I would say
the rebellion is more likely to end than the dynasty. No
doubt there are in different parts of China rebellions more
or lel, for that, I regret to say, is the normal condition of
more tlaan one Oriental Government, which have not at-