The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-09 00:00:00

CHINA.

Mr. WHITE proposed, " That in the opinion of this
house her Majesty's Ministers should direct the British
authorities and commanders of her Majesty's naval and
Military forces in China to avoid any intervention beyond
that absolutely necessary for the defence of those British
subjects who abstained from all interference in the civil war
now raging in that country." The hon. member condemned
the policy of the Government hi entering into an offensive
and defensive alliance with the Mantchu dynasty against
the Taepings, and pointed out as one consequence of that
policy that we thereby took upon ourselves the defence and
protection of 16 ports on the China seaboard, ranging over
20 deg; of latitude and 12 deg. of longitude, He also ex-
pressed his regret that we were co-operating with the
FTench in that part of the world ; for their ways wera not
our ways ; neither were their interests our interests. As
General Montauban had declared in the French Senate,
they had no sympathy whatever with us, they were in
China only to defend religion and la gloire. So far as the
conflict between the Imperialists and Taepings were con-
cerned, he understood that it was the earnest desire of the
latter to come to terms, and that they had such respect for
the British power that our Government had cnly to will it
in order to its being done.
The motion was seconded by Sir L. PALK, who urged
that the true policy of this country in China was one of
strict neutrality, and that we had nothing to do with the
quarrels of the Imperialists and the Taepings, or with pre-
serving the empire of theMantchus or supporting the rebels.
Our sole concern was with the ports which were opened to
our trade, and our only duty to afford protection for our
commerce.

Mr. GREG SON believed that the measures adopted by
her Majesty's Government iu reference to China affairs
were dictated by the single desire to protect British in-
terests in that quarter.
After speeches from Mr. KINNAIRD and. Colonel SYKES,
the latter of whom reiterated his oft-expressed opinions in
favour of the Taepings,
Mr. LAYARD said that the whole question at issue
turned upon the character of the Taepings, and, according
to the best information in his possession, they were a set of
ruthless marauders. They were not a national party—they
had no " programme"—and from beginning to end they
had maintained the same bad repute. As to the Chinese
people, there was no doubt they had been greatly brutalised
by the rebellion ; but for the cruelties committed by them
the Imperial authorities were responsible. On the other
hand, no one was responsible for the atrocities of the Tae-
pings; and wherever we had appeared the whole popula-
tion had flocked to our standard and begged our protection.
The Imperial Government represented the principle of order,
the Taepings the principle of disorder ; and the policy we
had adopted was to defend our own subjects and our
own interests, and to give the Imperial Government our
moral support, our sympathy and advice. All the material
assistance that we had given them was to defend and pro-
tect the treaty ports; but whilst doing our best to prevent
them falling into the bands of the rebels, the Imperial Go-
vernment had been plainly told that they must not look to
us for further support. Tt was a treaty °Mk:alien upon us
to co- operate with the Ch'nese Government in putting
down piracy in the China seas; and seeing that if the
Taepings entered Shanghae, the coast would at once swarm
with pirates, her Majesty's Government had sanctioned
the employment by the Imperial Government of British
naval officers in Chinese vessels manned by native crews.
Mr. COBDEN said that the fallacy which ran through

the Under Secretary's speech was his speaking of the
Chinese Government, when there was really no such Go-
vernment in existence. The destruction of that Govern-
ment was, in his opinion, clearly traceable to the last two
wars in which England and France had engaged against
China. Previously to that the Government at Pekin was
considered invincible, but the allies had overcome that
power by military force, and had thus destroyed the
prestige of the native Government in the minds of the
people. Mr. Layard had talked of giving advice to the
Imperial Government relative to the management of their
finances ; but if this policy were persisted in much longer
we ourselves should want some shrewd Dutchman or Swiss

to look after our finances. Having established English-
men as merchants in China we were bound to protect their
lives and property; but it would behove a wise nation not
to seek to establish British merchants in positions where
their establishment was not likely to tend to national ad•
vantage. He, for his part, would withdraw from as many
of the treaty ports as were found not to be necessary, and
concentrate our trade in two or three places only, in order
to have as little to protect as possible.
Lord PALMERSTON vindicated the Chinese policy
of the Government, which ho argued was calculated with-
out any interference beyond what was necessary for the
protection or the places where our merchants were estab-
lished, to assist the Chinese Government in restoring order
and law: in China, and was, therefore, eminently condu-
cive to the promotion of our commercial interests in that

country.
Mr. WHITESIDE remarked that whilst the noble
viscount was vindicating his present policy in China he
seemed to have forgotten that every word he spoke was a
censure of the past. That policy was, in fact, neither more
nor less than that law and order were to be restored in
China by the Government of Great Britain.
Mr. WHITE having briefly replied,
Mr. WALPOLE said that not being in possession of all
the information which was in the hands of the Govern-
ment he felt bound to give a negative to the motion, but he
protested agatnst the doctrine enunciated by the noble
viscount and the Under Secretary that we were justified in
taking part in a civil war with the view of restoring law
and order in China.

Lord J. MANNERS declared that for the reasons which
Mr. Walpole had urged for voting against the motion he
should give it his support.

Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 197 to 88.

KERTOH PRIZE MONEY.

Sir J. HAY moved that it was inexpedient that judgment
should be any longer delayed on the amount of prize money
duo to her Majesty's land and sea forces employed in the
capture of Kertch and Yenikale in May, 1854, as it was
calculated to injure the confidence of the soldiers, seamen,
and marines in the good faith of her Majesty's Government
in matters of prize.
Colonel NORTH seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said that nothing was further
from the wish of her Majesty's Government than to inter-
pose unnecessary delay in the distribution of the prize
money which our sailors and soldiers had earned ; but th -
e
Parlia question referred to was complicated by Acts of
ment and legal and international considerations. These
matters had been referred to the law officers of the Crown
for their opinion ; and until that was received it was impos-
sible to say who were the parties entitled.
After a few words from Admiral w LCOTT,
Mr. HENLEY said he had read the papers upon the
subject, and the only conclusion to which be was able to
come was that whilst one department of the Government
admitted the claim another had endeavoured to shuffle out
of it.
Discussion ensued, in which Mr. Deedos, Lord C. Paget,
Sir C. Wood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr.
Whiteside took part ; and ultimately the motion was put
and carried without a division.
Leave was given to Mr. HEADLAM to bring in a bill for
the more effectual recovery of poor rates, or other local rates
and taxes.
OR the motion of Sir M. PETO, the order for going into
committee on the Burials Bill was discharged, and the bill
withdrawn.
The other business was then disposed of, and the house
adjourned.

MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF THE HIGH
SHERIFF OF LEICESTERSIIIRE.—No trace of Mr. WiliStall•
ley—whose disappearance wo have already recorded—has
yet been discovered. It is feared that some fatal calamity
has befallen him. It is stated that on quitting his hotel
at Folkestone he left in his carpetbag £6O, which he had
taken with him to meet his travelling expenses. This fact
does not favour some of the early surmises that ho had left
the country. Moreover, there appears to be no cause what-
ever for such a step, and several engagements he had made
show that a few days before his disappearance he could not
be contemplating such an event. Mr. Winstanley is the
owner of estates of great extent and value, the heir to which
is the soon of his sister, who at present resides in Australia*
—Leeds Mercury.