The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOIWON, PRIDAY EVENING, JULY Itt 18800

complain, therefore, that the hon. baronet should take this
occasion, on going into Committee of Supply, to ask what
are the views of the Government with regard to the pre-

sent state of Italy. At the same time I must say that,

as the hon. baronet went on from one topic to another,

I was much at a loss to draw from his observations
what was the policy he would recommend. (Hear, hear.) I
own I was puzzled to know whether he wished that the
King of Naples should be enabled to assert his authority in
Sicily, and that the influence of her. Majesty's Government I
should be used fur that purpose, or whether he desired that
the people of Naples and Sicily should be free to choose for
themselves that kind of government which they preferred.
In looking at this subject, one must consider what has hap-
pened since 1815, and more particularly the events of last
year. In 1815 Austria had allotted to her Lombardy and
Venetia, but her influence was not confined to those terri-
torities. From ISIS to 1859 she extended her influence
over every part of the peninsula ; and when the political
influence which a great country such as Austria possesses
was not sufficient she sent her armies to put down the in-
stitutions which the people had chosen for themselves, and
to restore absolute dominion. The present Prime Minister
of Austria has been obliged to confess that that system has
failed. Well-intentioned, as he innintains it was, towards
the people of Italy and the general balance of power in
Europe, he cannot deny that the result has been such as to
make the Italians averse from Austrian rule and to compel
Austria to renounce that policy for the future. (Hear.)
From 1848 to 1859 France and Austria occupied by their
arms parts of the Roman States. In 1859 it happened, as
it was very likely to happen in some year or other without
any one being able to fix the precise epoch, the King of
Sardinia excited the people of Italy to resist foreign domina-
tion. He assured them that he felt for their agony and that
he sympathized with their griefs; and at that time he ob-
tained the assistance of France to enable him to oppose Aus-
tria. This country, mailer the guidance of the Ministry of
Lord Derby, refrained from taking any part in that war, and
that neutrality was applauded and supported by all classes in
the country. Assuming that position, therefore, it was not
for us to expect any of the rewards or spoils which might
be the results of the contest. It appears now that at the
♦ery commencement of the war France had stipulated, not
in a formal treaty, but in an agreement so binding that
Sardinia could not afterwards free herself from it, that if a
considerable part of Italy were trausferred to the King of
Sardinia, Savoy and Nice should be annexed to France for
the security of her frontier. Her Majesty's Government
were asked in the beginning of July last year what was their
opinion of that annexation. We believed it would have a
mischievous effect ; but we did not say then, we have never
said, that we should oppose that annexation by force of arms.
We informed the French Government that, in our opinion, a
grave mistake in policy would be committed if these pro-
♦inces were annexed to France. We pointed out that the
distrust which would thereby be created in Europe, on the
Rhine, and elsewhere, rendered the annexation in every way
objectionable. That was the course we pursued and the
opinion we maintained. It is an opinion we have never con-
cealed from the Emperor of the French, or from any of the
other Powers of Europe. But we never proposed to carry
that protest to the extremity of war in the event of the an-
nexation being carried out. In considering the conduct of
Sardinia and of the Italians, it must be borne in mind that
the people of Italy have, not merely since 1815, but for hun •
dreds of years, been suffering from the effects of their own
dissensions. They have been subdued by foreign Powers,
they have been kept in subjection to tyrants they despised,
they have been misgoverned to the utmost, their national
genius has been silenced ; and all these misfortunes have
sprung frons the same cause. It has been a reproach to them
in the eyes of foreign nations, and one which they have felt
deeply, that to their own disunion, dissensions, and jea-
lousies they owed the miseries they suffered. Such being the
case, what w.e3 more natural than that the men who wished
that their country should be independent, and that she
should play her part once more in the great theatre of the
world, should apply the antidote where they found the poi-
son at work, and attempt by union to remedy the disease
from which their country languished ? (Hear.) In Tuscany
there was no violent tyranny to complain of. The Govern-
ment was mild, and had it been only a question of driving
away one Sovereign and putting another in his place, the
people would not have been disposed for revolution; but the
feeling in Tuscany, as well as elsewhere, was that, unless
they could have union and range themselves under the
banner of a single Sovereign, there would bo no chance of
security and independence for them as a nation. (Hear.) The
King of Sardinia is a brave and gallant man, a soldier who
has distinguished himself in the field, but it is not so much
his personal merit as his being the sovereign who has
evinced a desire to assert the independence of Italy which
has rallied the Italians round him and induced them to
unite themselves under his sceptre. (Hear.) 'What, then,
was France to do in such a case ? The Emperor of the
French had signed a treaty by which the Dukes of Tus-
cany and Modena had their rights reserved to them ; but he
had declared at the same time that he would neither use
force himself nor permit others to use it to coerce the will
of the people of Italy. The Italians were encouraged by
that declaration, and proclaimed that their wish was to be
annexed to Sardinia. Austria, enfeebled by the war she
had just passed through, and dispirited by the reverses she
had sustained, although she still maintained her former
views as to the rights which wore derived from legitimate
sovereignty, agreed to make no attack on the revolted
parts of Italy and to confine herself to the defence of her
own dominions. What was the course, then, which her
Majesty's Government took? Seeing that the people of
Italy had suffered from their former disunion, and from the
foreign intervention which had taken place in 1821, in 1148,
and on other occasions, they deemed that the time had now
come when it was right to see whether the Italians could
not form and sustain a government for themselves. Her
Majesty's Government, therefore, laid it down as a princi-
ple by which they would abide, that the Italians should be
allowed to make their own choice of a government, and that
no foreign Power should be interposed to coerce them..
(Hear, hear.) I could not gather the view of the hon.
baronet on this subject, but the view I have stated is a
broad and simple view. We have found hitherto that the
people of Italy who have rallied under the King of Sar-
dinia have shown no disposition to break into tumult.
(Hear, hear.) There has been but one outrage, but one
murder committed during the revolution in Central Italy,
and nothing like anarchy has di4played itself there. On
the contrary, there has everywhere been submission to the
new form of Government. Well, then, I come to that
which formed the theme of the greater part of the speech
of the hon. baronet—the case of Naples and Sicily. And
hero I must say I could have wished that the hon. baro-
net had spared the memory of one who is now no more—
Lord Minto. His representations of Lord Minto's conduct
are entirely erroneous. Lord Minto wont to Italy at the
desire of my noble friend, who was then Foreign Secretary,
with the view of reeenciling the sovereigns of Italy to make
reasonable and useful improvements, and of recommending
the chief persons to remain tranquil under their respective
sovereigns, and to look for internal improvement from those

sovereigns.
Sir U. PEEL wished to say that he should always enter-
tain an agreeable souvenir of Lord Minto's kindness to him
personally. What he said was that his political mission
was a failure, and that the Government he represented had
deceived the Sicilian patriots.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—The hon. gentleman having repre-
sented certain facts, and having declared that Lord Mint°
was the instrument of deceiving the Sicilian patriots, it is
necessary to state exactly what occurred with respect to
Naples and Sicily. Lord pinto, when he went to Naples
found that the King had given a constitution to his people,
and that a Liberal Ministry were in office. He assisted at
a Council with the King of Naples that sat many hours, and
tie result of which was that certain concessions were made
to the people of Sicily, which it was hoped would induce
them to remain under the sceptre of the King of Naples.
Lord 'Minto was authorised to make these proposals to the
Sicilians ; but when he arrived there two circumstances had
occurred which contributed to the failure of bis endeavours,
both of which were beyond Lord Minto's control. One was,
that the French revolution had broken out, and that the
French people had proclaimed a republic. The minds of
men were agitated throughout Europe, as we all remem-
ber, by that news. The people of Sicily among others
were discontented with their former Government, and wish-
ing for a change, they began to think that some republi-
can change would be more advantageous than the institu-
tions they had formerly lived under, or than a return to
the sway of the King of Naples. Another circumstance
had oc :urred which I may relate, as so many circumstances
of a similar character are known that it can be no addi-
tional reproach upon the late King of Naples to mention
it. Lord Minto's only chance was in carrying these con-
cessions with him as a British Minister, and recommend-
ing them in that capacity to the Sicilians as a sufficient
guarantee for their liberty. But when he arrived in Sicily
he found that these conditions had been known some days,
and that they had been sent without any recommendation
from the King of Naples. The people of Sicily had delibe-
rated upon those proposals, and had determined to reject
them, and thus his mission fail( d at the moment of his arri-
'al. Now lot us see what have been our relations with re-
spect to that Spanish branch of the;llouseof Bourbon which
now sits upon the throne of Naples. In 1806 the British
" ernment refused to make peace with France almost
solely because the Emperor of the French demanded Sicily,
and the British Government to its honour refused to sur-
render the territory
owed to the Govrtthinorenant eaellGy Thus the house of Bourbon
of Sicily. me: ;eat Britain the prcservati n
established in Sicilyea\rvj,- A constitution was at that time
teh Lord W. Bentinek did much to
confirm. By that constitution the kingdom of Sicily was
to be separated from t ie
Tzsd.oin of Naples. If the eldest
son of the King of the
chose Sicily he was to
abandon the crown of Naples
while
if he chose Naples he
Was to give up Sicily and the second -
In
141 son was to succeed to
the throne of that country.
y
Sicilies procured an a: tide to be inserted
n ii
n.. f the of
of
ru the Treat
to Two
Vienna, in which he was recognised sea x.K of the Two
Sieelies, whereby the constitu ion of 1812 ems t
and scattered to the winds. In 1815 the
--lug of thePiTeces
Tr w
o
Sieilies made a treaty with Austria, by which he engaged
not to introduce into his dominions any other government
than that which the Emperor of Austria might think fit ea '
hared uce
By this treaty he not only de-
stroy einto
Lombardy.
•
12 but he made a compact with
d the constitution of 18 , with
a foreign Power that he would not restore liberty to Sicily.
constitution, it was over-
In 1821, when that country had a con

thrown by presence et isforeign. force, and 49,000 Aus-
trian troops occupied Naples and Sicily. In 1848, again,
the King of Naples gave a constitution to his subjects, which
he afterwards destroyed by his own hands. Fro :n 1848 to
1859 the people of Naples and Sicily suffered under—not
the absolute Government of the monarch and the despotic
conduct of his Ministers, but under an arbitrary and vexa-
tious police, which made every man's house a
prison, which tracked men as the - walked the
streets, and followed them into the privacy of domestic life;
• and which made the whole kingdom such a scene of misery
and tyranny as has hardly any example. (Cheers.) The
present King succeeded to the throne. The late Government
of this country thereupon sent Mr. Elliott to Naples, and
told him verbally--for I believe he had no written instruc-
tions—to advise a liberal Prime Minister and a constitution
to the King of Naples. When we succeeded to the Govern-
ment we advised the King to make concessions of popular
institutions, and, above all, to establish -a just administration
of the law. (Hear, hear.) The Ministers of the King of
Naples said " We do not mean to grant a constitution ; we
disapprove of popular constitutions, but we mean to ad-
minister the law." Upon this we inquired, if they meant to
administer the law, why they kept so many persons in prison
against the law ? They rejoined that the law was intended for
the people, and not for the Government ; that the Govern-
ment might arrest anybody it pleased, and that it was ne-
cessary for the purposes of the State that the Government
should not be compelled to bring them before the tribunals.
Thus we went on, always advising concessions and a liberal
constitution, or at the least an administration of the law,
and if our advice has not been taken, and the concessimas
lately made have not succeeded, it only proves that thoso
concessions were made too late. (Hear, hear.) We at
least cannot reproach ourselves that we have concealed from
the King of Naples the policy that would have saved his
throne and given security to his dynasty in future. (Cheers.)
Even a few months ago the King of Naples might have se-
cured both Naples and Sicily. An expedition went out—
and here I must explain the particular fact to which the
hon. baronet alludes. He adverted to a speech made by me
in this house in answer to the member for Dundalk—rela-
tive to Garibaldi; but the hon. baronet did not state, and
probably did not know, the date when that took place. It
took place in , he summer of last year, when the King had
just ascertained the existence of much discontent in Sicily,
and when it was desirable he should take every oppor-
tunity of meeting this discontent by just concessions and
the establishment of a free constitution in that island. The
Government of Naples wished us to represent to Sardinia
that it ought not to invade a friendly State. It so happened
that the King of Sardinia had no such design or in-
tention, and we received a communication to that effect.
What happened lately took place without our knowledge.
I know not whether it was without the knowledge of the
Sardinian Government, but so far from their having in-
spired the expedition, I believed they looked upon it as a
wild and mad enterprise, and thought they would soon re-
ceive intelligence of its utter failure. I have stated on
former occasions, when Garibaldi was reproached with
being a filibuster, that the name could not justly be applied
to a man who had rescued a country from slavery, and
placed it in a position of liberty and happiness. Garibaldi
is at least a man of very extraordinary character. (Hear.)
He landed with between 1,000 and 2,000 men, and in the
course, I believe, of a fortnight 18,000 or 20,000 of the forces
of the King of Naples agreed to evacuate Palermo, and the
people of Sicily followed him as their deliverer. (Hear.)
Well, then, again comes a new position of affairs. It may
be that the people of Sicily will declare in favour of annex-
ation. It may be, and I think it likely, that an attempt to
annex Sicily and then to annex Naples, and, I suppose, the
Roman States, would not end in the consolidation of a firm
government. For my own part, I doubt very much
whether the people of the north of Italy can, under the
same sceptre ssith the people of southern Italy, form a firm
and permanent government, which would act in harmony
for the welfare of the Peninsula. These are my doubts and
my opinions. If the King of Naples is able by the con-
cessions which he has made to conciliate the Neapolitans,
and induce them to live under his rule with free institutions,
her Majesty's Government cannot find fault with such a
result. Again, if the people of Sicily can obtain the con-
stitution of 1812, and are satisfied with the constitution, it
is not for us to find fault with the arrangement. But, on
the other hand, we will never lose sight of the principle
which we have before enunciated, and which we think is a
sacred principle—one to which there are indeed some, but
very rare, exceptions—namely, that with regard to the in-
ternal government of a country the people of that country
are the best judges, and that no one should interfere by force
to coerce and to overwhelm their decision. (Cheers.) It is
not only a nice question but it is one of the most extreme
difficulty, for foreigners to declare, " Such a man is worthy
of your confidence ; such a Prince may be safely followed ;
such a chief is a good political adviser, such another will
give you a constitution under which you may live happy."
A foreigner should speak on such matters with great mea-
sure and with greatreserve, and can only give an opinion ac-
cording to the imperfect lights which he may possess. It it
therefore, for the people of Sicily and of Naples, and I must
add also—whoever may be offended by that expression—it is
for the people of the Roman States themselvesto say what is
, the form of government under which they choose to live.
. (Cheers.) With regard to the policy of the British Govern-
, ment, we may from day to day have to treat of matters in
which our relations with other Powers may induce us to re-
commend a particular measure at one time or a certain course
at another, but I can assure the house, and it is the only word
and the last word I have to say, that, as far as concerns the
people of Italy, we have no other policy than to leave them
to decide for themselves their own fate. (Hear, hear.) If
their decision should be such as tends to the future happi-
ness and independence of Italy, I feel confident we shall re-
joice at it, and not on account of Italy alone.
" Who values liberty confines
His love for her within no narrow bounds ;"
and I believe that for the liberty and happiness of Europe,
as well as for " the balance of power" in Europe—a phrase
which is often abused, but which yet has a clear, and sig-
nificant meaning—there can be no better guarantee and no
greater security than the independence of Italy. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. KINGLAKE said the hon. baronet need not have
offered any apology for bringing this important subject be-
fore the house. Sardinia was the neighbour of France, and
the Emperor claimed territory to be annexed to France be-
cause of the extension of the kingdom of Sardinia. It seemed
that the Government of France put forward another Power
in order that it might have a pretence for having an increase
of territory to France. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
had made a speech that night which had given him (Mr.
Kinglake) unfeigned gratification. Was Sardinia labour-
ing to put together the scattered limbs of Italy, or was she
the vassal, the mere vassal, of France ? He rather thought
the latter was the case, and recent facts tended to confirm
him in that opinion. The King of Sardinia had parted
with his ancient sovereignty, and with a great part of
his seaboard, in favour of France. He had no
longer any ally but France, who was in fact his master.
He was in much the same position as King Joseph
was in the early part of this century, and whose
kingdom soon departed from him. In the month of March
last Count Cavour stated that he looked to Venetia, and to
keeping Austria in check on the Mincio. The same scheme
of policy that had been pursued by Sardinia had been
pressed upon the Prince Regent of Prussia. He was, he
believed, pressed to appropriate some of the smaller States
of Germany in return for giving to France the Rhenish
provinces. But the French Emperor encountered in his
late interview an honest man, and time had shown that his
former statements were true. He asserted that at the meet-
ing at Villafranca the Emperor of the French proposed to
the Austrian Emperor to give back Lombardy if Austria
would acquiesce in the operations he would attempt on the
Rhine. The answer was very simple. It was, no ; I am a
German Prince. Thoyalways found thepolicy of the French
Emperors was to invite peace between contending parties
at the expense of neutrals and friends. Why was it that
Europe was filled from one end to the other with rumours
of war ? Along the whole eastern frontiers of France agi-
tators were at work to foster discontent with existing rule,
and prepare the way for a coming change. He had a letter
from a gentleman in one of those States, giving an account
of an interview with a French emissary, who said that there
was not a country in Europe in which French had not a
question at issue upon which it could ground immediate
action if it were desirable to do so. (Hear.) There was the
name of an hon. member used, who was not then in his
place—(a laugh, and cries of " Name")—whose policy was
the delight and gratification of his Imperial friend. The
cause of that state of thinga was the internalstate of France,
and it was the policy of its ruler to divert attention from
them by inducing the people to look abroad. There was
now no longer a system of foreign policy in France, but a
series of small conspiracies, many of which were projected
by the French police. It was impossible to tell with whom
the next war would be. The French Emperor appeared like
a dumb animal, who pulled the trigger at random. The
words of the noble lord had given great satisfaction when
he said that, while it was desirable to be friendly with
France, it was necessary not to live apart front other na-
tions. (hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE—I wish to call the attention of the
house to the practical part of this subject. The hon.
baronet opposite put a question to the noble lord, to which
I was not so fortunate as to hear the answer. Ile asked for
information as to the probable demands of Franco in the
event of the annexation of Sicily to the kingdom of Sar-
dinia. No doubt, as the noble lord truly observed, deli-
cacy and reserve ought to be observed in respect to a
future foreign policy, when you are ignorant of what that
policy may be, and have no knowledge of the facts. But
the noble lord gave no answer to the direct question put to
him. He, however, made a statement full of interest, and
I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
here at the time to be instructed by it. (A laugh.) It was
declared some months since in this house—although it wasnot
i then admitted by the Treasury bench—that long ago %bargain I
was struck between the Minister of Sardinia and the French
Emperor, that in the event of the kingdom of Sardinia being
considerably enlarged compensation should be made to the
injured and terrified ruler of France. (A laugh.) The noble
lord, however, is the first Minister of the Crown who has ac-
knowledged
gt
: tati truth of this statement, arid ho has truly
vernment of
added that the policy of the French Government was cal-
culated to disturb Germany and fill Europe with distrust ,
Go on was conveyed by our Minister to th e
the Emperor. That I hold to be a very iri ,-

portant annowicement. It is an announcement of the view
which her Majesty's Government took of that transaction.
But I beg the house to remember that, while the noble
Foreign Secretary has made that significant statement as
to the recent policy of France, we have had the Chancellor

of the Exchequer announcing to us for weeks and months
past, with his extraordinary } owers of eloquence, that no-
thing but peace and happiness were to flow from our com-

mercial arrangements with that country, the policy of which
the noble lord tells us fills Europe with alarm and distrust.
(Hear, hear.) Which of these two Ministers is in the right
I do not pretend to say, except to hint as delicately as I can
that I think it is the noble Foreign Secretary, and not his
colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (A laugh.) As,
however, the noble lord has expressed his opinion, it is only
fair that the right hon. gentleman should have an oppur..

tunity of favouring us with the opposite view of the ques-
tion—(a laugh)—and of depicting the general confidence
and tranquillity consequent upon the copclusion of the
French commercial treaty. I agree with the noble lord that
a policy of peace, to be pursued, I presume, consistently
with honour, is the policy worthy of a British Minister. I
was not in this house when the discussion took place upon
the conduct of Lord Minto ; but I have read what was said
on that occasion, and I learnt that the noble viscount de-
fended that noble lord from attacks then made upon him,
as I understand, by certain members of his present Admi-
nistration. (Hear.) It is a remarkable circumstance that
the hon. baronet should commend the patriotic spirit dis-
played by the volunteers of this country, and that the hon.
gentlemen opposite should tell us that Europe is disturbed
by rumours of war, changes of dynasty, and possible revo-
lutions; while for months past we have been assured by
the most eloquent members of the Ministry that if we only
acquiesced in his schemes we might calculate upon a secure
and prolonged European peace. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL explained that the right hon. gen-
tleman was perfectly right in saying he had declined giving
the information referred to in this motion, which ho felt it
his duty to oppose.
Mr. MONSELL could not collect from the noble lord's
speech whether her Majesty's Government were encoura-
ging or discouraging the annexation of Sicily to Sardinia.
If the inquiry addressed to the noble lord had been whether
the Government were in favour of leaving the people of
Sicily to choose for themselves what form of domestic
government they would live under, the noble lord's speech
would have been perfectly satisfactory, and everybody pre-
sent might have concurred in it. That, however, was not
the question put by his hon. friend, who wished to know
whether the policy of annexing Sicily to Sardinia was to be
pursued, and whether the consent of her Majesty's Go-
vernment was again to be given to principles which must
lead to continual changes in the map of Europe, putting
every small State in perpetual trepidation lest it should be
,ransferred to some other Power.

Mr. GRIFFITH thought the hon. baronet opposite, led
away by his laudable feelings in favour of the liberties of
one country, had rather overlooked the rights and interests
of another. Dazzled by the light of the commercial treaty,
he and his colleagues had turned a blind eye upon the pro-
ceedings of France towards Sardinia and had given delusive
and evasive answers in the other House of Parliament ; but
since then nothing could be more suitable than the terms
in which the noble lord had expressed the policy of this

country.
The motion for an address for papors was then negatived
without a division.
THE PAPER DITTY.

Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to move "that this house, in
consequence of the House of Lords having interfered with
the arrangement of supplies for the year, recommended by
her Majesty's advisers, and by such interference assumed
responsibility for the conduct of finance, postpones the con-
sideration of further proposals by the Ministers of the Crown
towards meeting public expenses until the period when the I
authority of the House of Commons shall have been as•
serted, and the bill for the repeal of the Excise on Paper
shall have become law," but he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who stated that, one amendment upon
the motion for going into committee of supply having been
put and negatived, it would be contrary to the rules of the
house to propose another.
Sir J. TRELAMNY said that, nevertheless, he wish to
take that opportunity to make a statement on the subject to
which his motion related. It seemed to him that the course
pursued by that house on the question of privilege was not
worthy of the occasion. He had refused to have anything
to do with the three resolutions recommended by the Go-
vernment, because he thought the house ought to have
taken some active step, and not to have been satisfied with
mere words. The house was now in a degraded and dis-
creditable position. It was lowered in the eyes of the
people, and its authority for the future was weakened.
The very fact that Ministers had deemed it to be their duty
to propose resolutions, proved that something had oc-
curred which was deserving of censure ; but he con-
tended that abstract resolutions were not sufficient to
meet the case. It might be said that the Lords had done
well to arrest the repeal of the paper duties, and he faankly
admitted that, in his opinion, a reduction of the tea and
sugar duties would have given more satisfaction to the
people ; but the House of Commons had decided otherwise,
and the Lords, unless they were prepared to become re-
sponsible for the finances of the country, wore not entitled
to interfere in the matter. Their conduct in rejecting the
Paper Duties Repeal Bill might have the effect of raising a
cry of " privilege" and "primogeniture," and it might be-
(tome an important question whether we should not do well
to substitute an elective fur an hereditary peerage.
THE CHINA VOTE.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY observed, that as he could not
bring forward the motion he placed on the paper he would
briefly state his objects. Ho complained of the manner:in
which the vote for China was brought forward, and that
the expenditure of the year, instead of being £70,000,000,
would be £73,800,000. He saw an item set down of
£440,000, and wished to be informed what that was for.
Was it for the settlement of an account, or what were its
objects? The house should know how it was expended.
Unless they interfered and checked the expenditure now
going on for China they would have no further control
over it probably for two years.
Gen. PEEL reminded the house that he made a state-
ment in March last, and certainly he did not expect it
would be so soon verified. He said, that so far from
£850,000, then calculated for China, being sufficient, it
would take ten times that amount. The whole of the na-
tive troops employed in China were paid out of the re-
venues of India, and the cost was chargeable on the
vote of credit of £500,000. Not a single shilling was
taken for it in the estimates of last year, and the
outlay for the transport of the troops from India to
China was quite equal to that which would have been
incurred in bringing them home to this country. It
was impossible to separate the army estimates from the
budget. The budget professed to set forth the whole ex-
penses of the year, and if it didnot, to use the expression of
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
it was a gigantic delusion, and the repeal of the paper duty
was obtained under false pretences. (Hear.) Ho did not
make any charge against the Government for having failed
to provide for contingent future expenditure, but he did say
it was their duty to have provided for the liabilities ho had
mentioned. After all allowances made for the laxity of
accounts between the Imperial and the Indian Govtrn-
rnents, it could not be believed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not know that the expenses of the first Chi •
nese war, amounting to £400,000 odd, were charged to the
estimates of the present year, and that observation did not
apply to the Chinese war alone, but to the general estimates
of the year. On Feb. 27 he (Gen. Peel) pointed out that
93,500 men wore inadequate for the service of the year, and
that it was absurd to suppose that the Indian Government
would pay for any deficiency in the service. That remark,
too, was made independently of the men going to China.
The fact, however, spoke for itself. Within a month after
that estimate was laid on the table a revised estimate was
introduced, in which it was absolutely necessary to take an
additional sum for the men thus thrown on the British
establishment, which was to be met by a reduction in other
estimates. The reduction was not a reduction in reality,
however, but merely a postponement of charges which had
better have Leen borne this year. Thus there was a post-
ponement of the vote of £60,000 fur the carriage depart-
ment at Woolwich, in consequence of which it had been
impossible to issue the guns, their carriages not being ready
fur them. He still said that by thus producing the budget
before the estimates they Lad given the country a delusive
idea of the sum necessary for the public service timing the
year.
Mr. B. COCHRANE explained that after what had
taken place he was unable to make the motion of which bo
had given notice, but if an adjout nod debate should arise
on the vote of credit, he would move it on the next supply
night.

Mr. WARNER said he did not rise to ogpose the motion
for going into committee. Now that we were at war, that
war ought to be provided for. No House of Commons
would dispute that position, but still the vote was one which
ought not to pass without remark. It was not a vote in
which the house could take an interest, for the war had
been entered upon by the Crown in opposition to the deli-
berate opinion of the house, which had never been reversed.
They had heard a great deal of the recent aggression of the
Lords, but this was, in his opinion,
an aggression much
more dangerous; and it was the duty of the house to put on
record the circumstances under which it had occurred.
The SPEAKER then put the question that he leave the
chair, upon which
Sir J. TRELAWNY persisted in dividing the house.
The house accordingly divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 198
Against it
Majority —lBs
The house then went into committee.
TIIE CHINA VOTE.
Mr. S. HERBERT, in moving a vote of credit for the
expenses of the war iu China, said—At this late hour (halt-
pastwhich it is
10), I will endeavour to make the statement
toy duty to lay before the house as concise as I can consis-
t ently with the explanation which I have to give of the vote
c f credit which has been laid on the table of the house. But
efore I do so perhaps I may be allowed to take some notice
( if the observations which have been made by
my gallant
friend opposite. The gallant general says he prophesied
that five times £500,000 would be requisite to make up the
deficiency between the estimates and the expenditure for
last year, and for the China war generally, and ho asks me

whether evcryAixpenco of the £680,000 which we took hat not
been expended in making up the deficiency on the ordinary
estimates of last year? In the first place, net one sixpence of
that sum was appliceble to maliing up any deficiency which

might have occsnired in the ordinary estimates of last year.
My gallant friend, who is well acquainted with these
matters, must have spoken without reflection, for he must
have known that you cannot apply one farthing of a vote of
credit to any purpose but that for which it was voted. You
cannot spend it in making up an ordinary deficiency in the
ordinary estimate of the year. If his vaticinations, there-
fore, should prove correct, which I trust they will not, the
deficiency will have to be made up by a vote next year,
specially taken to cover it. But so far from all that sum
being spent in that way, we have reason to believe that a
large portion of it still remains unexpended. We cannot
tell yet—until we receive accounts from China it is difficult
to say how much of that money has been spent. Some of the

regiments embarked later than we thought they would, and
rather than being all spent, I should say that there was a
surplus left on that vote. The gallant general also says that
he pointed out that we were quite wrong in our estimate,
that £820,000 followed by £500,000 would not be sufficient—
that the war would inevitably come on, and that the Indian
Government—and here he was right—would inevitably
send home many more troops than we had expected, and he
blames us for not having had the foresight to provide for
this. Nobody knows better than the right hon. gentleman
how much safer it is not to trust to private information. We
have reason to recollect the circumstances in which we were
placed in the last autumn. The state of India was anything
but satisfactory; nothing but gloom pervaded European
society in India ; and Lord Canning then said, in answer to
letters from myself, that he could not part with European
troops, and he could not say how soon a state of circume
stances would arrive which would justify him iu parting
with any greet number of European troops. TV a listened
to that statement—we framed an estimate upon it. Great
changes took place in India. The pacification of Oude
seemed complete, and in consequence six battalions were
despatched from India, which induced us to withdraw the
estimate and to produce a revised estimate. I will not
go into detail upon the subject, but pass on to the observa-
tions of the hon. baronet the member for Evesham. And
there I must confess that to some great extent I agree with
him. But when he says that the estimate is unsatisfactory,
I am surprised that it is not to the amount that ho takes Q.X.•
ception—which I confess is unsatisfactory—but rather to the
manner and the time of proposing it. He says it is not made
in the shape we like or at the moment we like. He is silent
as to the amount, and I trust he will derive some consolation
from the extent of the estimate which is laid before the
house. In the consulate° upstairs, of which the right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle was chairman, wo took a
great deal of evidence withregard to the state of the account
pending between this country and India, and it was shown
to be extremely unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) I will read
just a passage from the report, because I wish to show the
principle upon which the Government have acted in apply-
ing for this veto of credit.
" The state of the account between the British Exchequer
and Indian territory is most unsatisfactory. The account for
the Persian expedition is not yet closed. The account of
the first China war is hardly completed yet. The account
of the second China war, wLich ended in 1856, is not yet ba-
lanced. There are four or five different accounts still open,
with disputed balances to a large amount; and with respect
to the new expedition to China, India, in the midst of the
great financial difficulties, has been required to make ad-
vances in the current year for all expenses incurred in tak-
ing up transports in India, in paying the men, and in pro-
viding cattle, horses, and other necessaries, as well as
equipments for the army. There does not appear to be any
estimate of the amount of these advances ; but while Indian
territory is overwhelmed with debt, it will be unseemly that
Great Britain should make war on China out of Indian re-
sources. The repayment of these advances ought to be
prompt, and within the present financial year."
(Hear, hear.) I entirely concur in every sentence in that
passage of the report. This first estimate of £443,000 for
past transactions, which I will explain in a moment, is a
sum for which I am at any rate not in any way responsible.
(Hear.) It is an arrear owing to the East India Company.
The accounts have not been audited. The amount has
not been entirely agreed upon, but, as the East India
Company aro not so rich that they can overlook these
little debts, and as they are anxious we should pay them, it
is necessary to pay something to them on account of these
past transactions. Would it be seemly this year to make
war on Indian resources ? I think not. (Hear.) I think
it is wise and right that we should lay before the House of
Commons, as far as we can form—l will not call it an esti-
mate, but a guess of what possibly may be the amount re-
quired to repay the Indian Government, and to pay the
army and navy engaged in these operations. The hon. bart.
says, "But you should give us this estimate in detail." I
do not think it is possible to give that estimate in detail. I
asked the East Indian Government to send me, not an ac-
count of the sums already expended for providing and
equipping the expedition, but an estimate of the sums so
expended, not, however in detail, because they do not know
the exact sums. They refused to send the information
officially, upon the ground that they ought not to send offi-
cially anything pretending to be an account which, after all,
was only an estimate of an account. I accepted that which
they would give unofficially, because I thought it very im-
portant that the Government should lay before the house a
rough and approximate estimate of what the cost may be.
I think it better to dispense with accuracy rather than
follow the system which has hitherto prevailed, of first
spending the money, saying nothing to Parliament, and
after all the transactions are ended coming to Parliament
to make good a deficiency over which they have no possible
check or control. (Cheers.) I will not weary the committee
by citing precedents, but I have carefully examined the
precedents of the votes for the China wars (that is, the first
and second expeditions), of the votes for the Caffre wars and
the Crimean war, and in every case I find a lump sum
voted as a vote of credit without details. The reason is
obvious. You cannot foresee in war what the expendi-
ture will be. You have in your estimates the actual cost
of the pay of the men. You may put an approximate esti-
mate of what it will be when the men are on Indian
allowances as well as English; you may put an ap
proximate estimate of the cost of Indian native
troops, but you cannot make an estimate of the cost
if the fol owers attached to these regiments. Therefore, if
I were to depart from the precedent of putting the estimate
n a lump suns I should depart from it for the purpose of
laying before the House an estimate which would be illusory,
and one which would deceive the House as to the sums
which they were voting. What is the use of laying items
before the House ? Obviously that the House may exercise
its discretion, and accept them or not—that they may put
their finger on ono item and say this is too much—you have
too many troops, too many camp followers, too many coolies.
Then it turns out in practice that they are much less—that
the excess of expenditure is under some other head—and
thus the inference becomes as illusory as the subject to
which it is applied. (Hear, hear.) I may really say that
the very term " vote of credit" shows what is intended. It
is not an estimate—not sums of money approved by the
House of Commons—but a vote given in confidence to the
Government that they will spend it for purposes which aro
requisite, to the hest of their ability. (Hoar, hear.) And I
do not believe we could carry on war otherwise, unless we
chose to accept knowingly, and with our oyes open, delusive
estimates, delusive criticisms, and delusive votes. (Hear,
hear.) I have in this case so far departed from precedent
that, instead of voting for the past, I am asking you to
vote for the future. According to practice, I might have
called upon the committee to vote £400,000 or £500,000,
after peace has been made and broken and there is a fresh
war, tut I think it much better to put the whole expenditure
before the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Let us
face it at once and see what will be the cost in the
course of the year, and should circumstances fortunately
occur which would load to an easy termination of these
unhappy hostilities, we shall have so much to the
good. Probably the committee will not be afraid, as
the money cannot be applied to any other purpose,
and it will be very unfortunate if the money be not
applied to this. (Hear, hear.) First, I ought to state
what are the sums of which the items of £413,000
fur past transactions are composed. In the last China
war there was an arrangement between the Treasury and
the East India Company that the Company should bear all
the ordinary charges of the force sent in. aid of the expedi-
tion, but that they should be reimbursed by the Imperial
Government all extraordinary payments. The accounts
were settled a few years ago, up to 1847-48. We have still
the balance remaining unsettled, from 1843-49 to 1858-59,
of £281,000, upon which questions will arise. We have
£82,000, on account of Indian military forces stationed in
China, and about £BO,OOO the estimated cost of Indian
native troops which form part of the garrison of Canton.
The great evil of the system, to my nsind, is, that in point
of act you have no power over the Executive as to the
number of troops you employ. You can vote every man
under the Mutiny Act, and not a Melt more can be em-
ployed as long as you do not vote more money for their
pay; but if you a nploy Indian troops you have no check on
the amount, except,in the gross sum which you aro after-
wards called upon to pay. No doubt there has been a very
wrong system, and part of this sum, no less than £32,000,
is for the cost of troops at Canton in tlse time of the gallant
officer opposite, and £BO,OOO is for troops ap to the time
this war broke out. The present estimate, therefore, ap-
plicable to the war in which, I believe, unhappily we are
now engaged, is less than £3,800,000 by £113,00 which
suns applies to past transactions. The committee would
probably like to know the sums directly or indirectly voted
for the China expedition. In enumerating them I will
follow the terra of the returns moved for by my right hon.
friend the member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), who
asks what are the sums put upon the ordinary army and
navy estimates for 1860-61, which are applicable to the ope-
rations in China. Now, I believe that practically, except
in the large consumption of stores, the men are not neces-
sarily an increased charge for that expedition. We have,
for instance, nine ba tenons of infantry in China; but, if
there were no Chinese war, one or two battalions would be
doing garrison duty abroad, and the other seven would
be in England, where they would be useful enough.
In the same way there would have been no considerable
disbandment of seamen in our navy had there been no war.
I will, however, give the information the hon. bart. re-
quires. The items in the army estimates for 1860-61 appli-
cable to the Chinese expedition were as follows :—Cost of
forces of all ranks, £399,583 ; clothing and necessaries,
£42,500; provisions, forage, fuel, light, &c., £22,740—,
total, £164,828. The navy estimates for 1860-61 included

the following sums :—Hire of transports, £107,000 ; coals,
£76,000; freight of stores, £17,000; making, with provi-
sions, bedding, &c., £217,900; adding the pay of men in

China (£163,000) it gave a total of £680,900. These two
totals in items in the army and navy estimates together
made £1,145,723. Of the vote of credit taken last year to
the amount of £850,000 the total apportioned for the army
was £578,638, and for the navy £268,451 These amounts,
together with the vote of credit for £500,000, give a grand

total of about £2,500,000. We now come to the vote before
us. I have already explained that the sum of £443,896 in
arrear due to her Majesty's Government from the East
India Company has no relation to the China war. They
have so little confidence in the statement they have drawn
up that they have forwarded it to me, not officially, but
privately, as an approximation to the real amount. The

cost of horses, bullocks, and ponies comes to £88,600 ; am-
munition, £16,000 ; advance of pay to the force on embar-
kation, £145,702 ; value of stores issued, £30,000. Alto-
gether, with the hire of the Indian Government steam-
ships, with rations and allowances to troops on board ship,
coals, &c., we have a total of £1,900,922. That is the
amount of the East India claim due to us in the course of

he year, supposing that the war lasts fora year.

and that the ships are kept on for that time. The War
office estimate includes the following items :—Difference
between British and India rates of pay, allowances to
wives and children, cost of natives attached to the force,
&c., for 10,985 Europeans, £526,355 ; cost of 7,623 native
troops, including pay, allowances, provisions, &c.,
£182,715; extra clothing and necessaries, £50,000;
extra provisions, forage, land transport, &c., £268,000 ;
extra warlike and other stores, £150,000 ; extra hospital
charges, including hospital ships, £284,208 ; sanitary esta-
blishments at the Cape, £23,792 ; estimated cost of native
Indian troops previously in China, £67,666—making a total
of £1,552,736. Then there is the Admiralty estimate to the
amount of £359,017. From the total a deduction must be
made of the sums which may not come into payment during
the year 1860-61. The estimate had been fixed roughly, as
I have stated, at £3,800,000. I will not now enter into the
policy of the war, because I have already had an opportu-
nity of expressing my own opinions on that matter when the
question was raised at the earlier part of the session. At
one time there was every reason to hope from the advices
which were received that hostilities would have come to an
end, and that a great demonstration of force would alone
have proved sufficient to procure us redress for the outrages
which had been committed at the mouth of the Peiho. We
have been disappointed in that hope. Those, however, who
are best informed on the subject still maintain that the chief
who is at the head of the war party in China, and who dis-
tinguished himself by the arrangements he made for our
repulse at the Peiho, stands too near the Throne to be
agreeable to the Emperor of China. Ile derives great
power from the party of which lie is the organ, and till
sonic defeat or disaster happens to him, there is little like-
lihood of a change in the policy of the Chinese Govern-
ment. But should any reverse befall him, it would be
gladly made use of by the Government to reverse a policy
which has been originated by ono of whom they are so
jealous. These aro mere speculations, it may be said, but
they come from an authoritative ssurce. Her Majesty's
Government would certainly receive with the greatest de-
light and satisfaction any news that would encourage us in
the hope that we are likely to enter into a better state of re-
lations with the Chinese. (Hear.) In the meantime I think
no one can deny that we are bound to provide for the pos-
sibility of continuing hostile operations. We have very
large forces in China exposed to a deadly climate, and we
are bound to do everything to enable them to bring the
contest to a speedy and successful issue. (Hear, hear.) Un-
der these circumstances, I do not believe the House will be
staggered even by the large amount of this estimate. Our
commanders in China are men in whom we have a right to
repose tho greatest confidence, for they are tried men. I
have received from General Hope Grant the expression of
his confidence in and admiration for the activity, resources,
and forethought which he sees displayed by Admiral Hope.
Of General Hope Grant's own judgment, prudence, and
energy I have formed the highest opinion from the com-
munications 1 have had with him. I think that the view
he took of the question as to the pay of the troops showed
great judgment, and on another instance he also displayed
a wise discretion. When ordered to occupy Chusan as a
depot, he found that the lodgings for the troops were
small, inconvenient, damp, and excessively unhealthy.
He therefore decided not to endanger the health of
his men by leaving them at Chusan, and, taking upon
himself the responsibility of disobeying instructions, he at
once carried them to a neighbouring island of sandy soil,
well watered, and wholesome. Indeed, in all his actions it
was impossible not to be struck with the judgment and
foresight displayed by General Hope Grant, as well as by
the second in command; and we may safely rely upon it
that whatever can be done by bravo and practised soldiers,
will be accomplished by our forces in China. Looking at
the late period of the session, it is important for the Govern-
ment and for the country that this matter should be decided
as soon as possible; and, without making any further ob-
servations, I beg to move that a sum of £3,800,000 be
granted to her Majesty for the China war.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, referring to the former ex-
penditure in China, said that, at the beginning of the ses-
sion no notion was entertained that four millions more
were about to be expended. Instead of their expenditure
being only 70 millions, it would be nearer 74 millions.
(Hear, hear.) It was to him quite inexplicable how the
right hon. gentleman could estimate a surplus of half a
million when there was a balance owing for the late
Chinese war. He would suggest that the £3,800,000 ought
to be divided into two parts. What had been voted already
this year brought the expenditure for the Chinese war up
to £4,600,000, independent of the balance of £lOO,OOO that
remained owing. Re understood a noble earl, who had been
Governor -General of India, to say, in another place, that
he found no difficulty in making out the estimate for the
Chinese war. As to the war itself, he thought they could
not enter into a more ruinous war than the war with China.
That, however, was determined on, and he thought it would
be very satisfactory that this large amount of expenditure
should be divided.
Mr. HANKEY understood the right hon. gentleman to
say that troops in India ought not to be employed in a war
with China at the expense of the Government of India.
He wanted to know how far the outstanding debt between
this country and India stood open, and how much was to
be paid by India.
Sir S. NORTIICOTE said it would be difficult to appor-
tion the payments to the different items, but they might
state that a portion of the vote was to be applied to the old
balance of upwards of £lOO,OOO.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the outstanding debts with
India were running debts, and the charges for recruiting
were not in this vote, because that was a running debt.
General PEEL said thero was a charge of £l7 for every
infantry soldier sent to India, and the expense of every man
sent from India would be repayable to the Indian Govern-
ment—Xl7 for every infantry soldier, £25 for every cavalry
soldier, and £5O for every artillery soldier. Was any por-
tion, he would ask, of the £3,800,000 spent, and what por-
tion of it ? Ho thought, if it were possible, there should
be a distinction drawn between prospective and retrospec-
tive expenditure.
Mr. S. HERBERT said not ono farthing of the present
vote would be spent upon the last year. The £850,000
voted at the beginning of the session would be applicable
for that purpose, but he could not tell what portion of it
had been spent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--The hon.
baronet the member for Evesham has expressed his surprise
at the large amount of money which the house is asked to
grant on account of the war with China, and in that sur-
prise I myself was, I must confess, disposed to share, when
the enormous amount required was first brought under my
notice. The present state of things has been with the Go-
vernment only a recent discovery, for although it was ob-
vious ever since our proposals had been rejected by the
Chinese, that war would in all likelihood ensue, yet
it was only within a short period that we were
enabled to form anything like an accurate conjecture
as to the probable expenditure which would be ten-
tiered necessary, and I need scarcely add that every fresh
communication tends to show that the limits of the demand
must be extended. But the hon. baronet contends that it
was wrong to state in the House of Commons in February
last that there would be a surplus of half a million in round
numbers on the balance of revenue and expenditure,
when outstanding debts to about the same amount
were due to the East India Company which the Govern-
ment muss have known would become payable. Now, on
that point the hon. baronet is entirely in error, for the
Government had not the smallest knowledge that the money
would became payable, nor an I aware they could possess
any such information. The fact is, that this money was
found to have become payable after a close inquiry into
running accounts, consisting of a great variety of items and
a lengthened correspondence and discussions with respect to
them, which extended over a number of years. For my
own part, I had no knowledge whatever, when the estimates
of the year were framed, as to what sums were likely to be-
come payable between the East India and the Home Govern-
ment, nor did I think any officer of the Government could
have furnished me with any prospective information on the
subject. But the lion. baronet has gone further, and con-
tends that the Government ought not to have entertained
any project for the general reconstruction or modification of
the taxation of the country at a time when there was so
large an expenditure as that for the China war in prospect.
Now, the answer to that charge must, in a great measure,
depend upon how far the Government were in possession of
information on the subject beyond that which was open to
every member of the House. Let me far a moment sup-
pose that we had peculiar means of estimating the proba-
ble amount of the expenditure in question, and that we had
in consequence known iu February last that it would be
necessary to make provision for £3,800,000; it is obvious
that in order to do so we must have asked the house, even
though no fax were repealed and no commercial
treaty with France were concluded, to impose
.C 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 in the shape of fresh taxes on
the country, a proposal which, an my opinion, it would
be most unreasonable on our part to make. The
truth of the matter is—and this, however, is the moral to
be drawn from discussions such as this in which we are
engaged—that it is utterly impossible to estimate the
entire charge for a war arising under circumstances such as
those in which that with China has originated. Thom t
were but two elements upon which to found a decision in.

_ . .
our possession in February, the one being that we knew
the terms which we meant to propose to. China; the other,
that we were aware of the amount of force which the

Cabinet had decided on sending to that country. The
terms embraced a demand for explanatio-. ;,::
cation of the treaty which Lord nut.th; ; but did
not include any demand :Co? co.:, in money over and
above that which the ti,irtause had already promised to
pay. The amour.'_ or force which the Cabinet decided on
sending out we.; 10,000 men, in case the whole force con •

sisteJ of Europeans, but in the event of any small portion
of it being composed of native Indian troops, its number
were to be increased, so as to render it equal in point
of efficiency to an army of 10,000 Europeans. That
was the knowledge which the Government possessed in

February. Ido not know whether the house was also in
possession of the terms that had been proposed to China,

but it did know the intentions of the Government as to the

number of men to be sent. Now, just see what the inten-
tions of the Govarnmeut are worth as to proceedings of this

nature at the other end of the world.

The terms we in-

tended to send to China were essentially altered for reasons
of policy which appeared conclusive to our representative
in China. I do not cast any blame upon that gentleman,
but the fact illustrates the feebleness and inefficiency of

the control which the Cabinet in London can exercise over

transactions of this kind. Then, as to the amount of force.

The amount of the forces under orders for China, which
have left the ports of England and India for that country,
is nearly twice the amount upon which the Cabinet had
decided. Under these circumstances, the hon. baronet

can easily judge how impossible it is for the Cabinet at
home to form a clear judgment of the likelihood of a war,
and of its scale of cost, but the committee must recollect
that this mode of providing the cost of these wars
is quite new to our annals. We have unfortunately
had a variety of these wars, but they have been paid
for almost entirely through the medium of the finance of
the East India Company, the demands made upon this
house at the commencement of those wars being very insig-
nificant, and repaid when the wars were concluded. The
first of these wars was in 1840, and the sum voted by this
house in that year was £173,000. In 1841 it only grew to
£400,000. In 1842 it increased to nearly £1,100,000, and
in 1843 a further sum of £821,000 was voted, and even
then a large balance remained, a great part of which was
not disposed of until the year after. Now, we are in a dif-
ferent state of circumstances. A large portion of the expen-
diture is to be defrayed through the medium of the East
India Government ; but in consequence of the change in the
Government of the East Indies it has become our duty to
ask the house to provide at once the means to meet, as far
as we can estimate it, the whole expenditure that will be
incurred, either directly by ourselves or indirectly by the
Indian Government. The committee must remember that in
respect of a good deal of this expenditure it is in advance.
The hon. baronet has given notice of a motion to ask what
advances have already been made on account of the war in
China. Ido not apprehend that it will be possible to an-
swer that motion, because the great bulk of the expenditure
is paid either through the medium of the East India Go-
vernment, of whose account we are not in possession, or
through the medium of the treasury chest in China. The
payments made from the treasury chest in China are made
in this way :—The persons having charge of the chest, see-
ing that a great demand upon it is likely to occur, will not
wait for the occurrence of that demand, but take steps be-
forehand to place themselves in funds to meet it. They
make a demand, not formally, for the special purposes of
the Chinese war, but to meet whatever lawful and proper de-
mand may be made upon the chest. These sums are to a
great extent sent in advance ; some portion is paid through
bills, negotiated there, and sent home by the officers of
the Treasury chest; but it is their duty not to be de-
pendent upon the negotiation of bills, as that might cause
embarrassment, if not loss to the country. With this they
must go on as long as the war is likely to continue. and
therefore one of the incidents of a war of this nature is,
that a large portion of the draughts made upon this
country must be paid in advance, and probably when
the war in China shall terminate, especially if it terminates
rapidly or suddenly, the Treasury chest may have a largo
amount of funds which will be unnecessary, and which will
be returned home. I mention these things to show how
impossible it is even now to frame what is called an esti-
Mate, but at a time when Parliament is about to separate it
is our duty to make the best conjectural statement we can,
and to ask as large a sum as will make us independent until
the close of the campaign—that is, practically until the
close of the financial year. The hon. baronet will see hew
different are the circumstances now from what they were
on former occasions. He says, however, that in my finan-
Mal statement I proposed £500,000 as a vote of credit for
the war in China. He is inaccurate upon that point. I
referred to the vote we had already taken in the course of
the session before the 10th of February, for the financial
year, which had not then expired ; I referred to the votes
included in the estimates for the present year ; and I said
also, as to the extraordinary expenditure of the expedition,
we ask for £500,000, in order to defray the cost of an ex-
pedition that was to be in the first instance a peaceful re-
monstrance. That was clearly a declaration that I was not
asking for a sum of money that would suffice to defray the
cost of a war in China through the financial year. Ido
not hesitate to say it would have been wrong to make any
such request. The hon. baronet addresses the question to
me, but he knows as well as I do that it is not the business
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame military esti-
mates. They are framed by the Cabinet, and lam willing
to take my share of responsibility for them. But in the
month of February, having six months of the Parlia-
mentary session before us, having sent out certain terms,
having directed an expedition, and having the power of
applying to Parliament for the charges of the war, if a war
should break out, Parliament being as good a judge as our-
selves of the probability of such an event, it would have
been a breach of our duty if we had applied to Parliament
to defray the expenditure of a war that had not com-
menced, that might not commence, and of the chance
of which Parliament could judge as well as we could.
The demand we made was very large in some respects,
larger than is stated by my right hon. friend, because of some
items of expenditure that had been incurred by this country
which did not appear as expenditure for the Chinese expedi-
tion, and yet were entirely due to it. I will mention one in-
stance. In the course of last autumn the Admiralty made
application to the Treasury to sanction the formation of
certain contracts for gunboats which were not included in
the estimates of last session. The Treasury acceded, on the
ground that a demand had been made on the fleet for gun-
boats with a view to service in China, and the cost of build-
ing them, although not appearing as set down to the expe-
dition, was really a part of its charge. I hope that the vote
we ask will cover all charges during the financial year, but
after what has occurred, I do not think the Government
can with prudence make itself responsible for what may be
the expenditure of such a war. The scene is so distant, the
circumstances vary so from time to time, that it must be left
to others on the spot to take decisions which otherwise
would be taken with the immediate authority of the Go-
vernment. If, unhappily, it should be prolonged beyond the
present year, the charge for the second year will in all like.
lihood be greater—(hear, hear)—at all events, it will be as
great as that we now ask for the first year of the war. (Hear,
hear.) And what is the lesson we ought to draw from that
circumstance ? It is very desirable that we should, if possi-
ble, draw some lesson from it, and I confess the lesson I
draw is this—that it is impossible to check proceedings of
this kind growing out of transactions such as the deplorable
events at the mouth of the Peiho, when once they begin.
(Hear.) What you should really look to is the mode of con-
ducting your ordinary communications with such distant
Powers, and the responsibility under which they are
conducted. It is an extremly dangerous •:‘ mof policy
that sends forth treaties to be ex: Langcd at the sword
point and at the cannon's re tee a. (Hear, hear.) By that
system of policy you necessarily place in the hands of the
remote agents of your power an amount of discretion and
responsibilit yr which I think too great for men to bear, and
certainly much greater than you would ever consent to
place in the hands of your Cabinet at home. If lam to
look for the immediate cause of the unhappy outbreak, I
might say I find it in the instructions of Lord Malmesbury
to Mr. Bruce—(" oh, oh I")—hear me out—instructions
which desired him to proceed to the Peiho for the purpose
of exchanging the treaties attended by a sufficient naval
force ; but—and this the sequel of my sentence—in my
opinion, it would be most unjust to place the responsibility
on Lord Malmesbury, because, in sending these instruc-
tions—although his was the immediate responsibility,
being at the Foreign-office at the time—l don't think
he acted on grounds peculiar to himself or the Admini-
stration of which he was a member, but rather in confor-
mity with what we may say had been more or less very un-
fortunately the recent tradition of this country with regard
to the conduct of such transactions. I don't wish, there-
fore, to be misunderstood as if in naming Lord Malmesbury
I was in the slightest degree charging upon him peculiar
responsibility. I cannot venture to hold out any expecta-
tions, now that we have reason to believe the war has ac-
tually broken out, with regard to the limits or amount of
the demands that may be made on the house, or the period
which those hostilities happily may be brought to a termi-
nation. I trust and pray that may be at an early period.
I believe there is no alternative but to submit, however re-
luctantly, to this, large demand, which we have submitted
at the earliest period at which we could place it before you.
I trust wo shall listen to the lesson which is taught us by
those transactions, by considering the manner in which we
have been accustomed to transact business of this kind in
distant quarters of the globe, and under circumstances of
grave and serious loss, as at the outbreak in the Peiho
co ;
trust the country will take that matter into serius nsido.
less
ration, and that for the future we may be likely to
incur the repetition of such a deplorable calamity. (Hour.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said they had a right to further
explanations as to the policy of this war, in respect to which
the statements made by Ministers were serious and unsatis-
factory. They were told the sole object of the Goeeenuient
was to demand a ratification of the treaty, and he thought
it would turn out to be ruinous to force upon China Euro-
pean
their diplomacy,
naval
and
military
and unfortunately,
resources
al ought to
,home,hav e
they were scattered and divided at an enormous distance
from home. The expense attending this unhappy struggle
was nearly six millions of money. They ought to have
heard a little more of this enormous expenditure when the
finances of the year was explained, and when the budget
was submitted, (Hear, hear.) The question they had to e

consider was this, was ft right for the Government to pre
pose a reduction of taxation on the 10th of February with
this prospective war with China being present to their
rind? He must therefore say that the explanation of the
ti'g at bon. gentleman was not satisfactory. He also wished
to know how long this six millions was to last. He also
-wished to know what they were going to war for—were
they going to war for an apology? (Hear.)

Mr. B. COCHRANE moved that the Chairman report
progress.

Lord 3. RI;SSELL said he could not allow the statement
of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down to pass
entirely unnoticed. He was quite aware of the grave re-
sponsibility that rested on her Majesty's Government, but
they had sharers in that responsibility. (Hear, hear.) He

_ .
was not about to blame the right hon. gentleman for the
Government to which he belonged, but the house must take
into account the girders that were given, and the responsi-
bility that was incurred by the right hon. gentleman him-
self and his colleagues in office. (Hear, hear.) When the
account was received of the signature of the treaty of Tien-
tsin, the Government of Lord Derby everywhere received
the warmest congratulations. It was no matter of blame
that the treaty of Tien-tsiu was signed. But what might
the Government of Lord Derby have done ? They
might have sent out Mr. Bruce alone, who was well ac-
quainted with the Chinese authorities. The Chinese were
quite ready to negotiate the treaty over again, and those
articles which were disagreeable to them might have been
re-considered, and if necessary omitted. But that was not
the course which Lord Malmesbury pursued. Two months
before the present Government came into office there was a
meeting at Hong Kong, which Mr. Bruce Sir C. Strau-
benzee, and hear- Admiral Hope attended; and there they
considered what were the instructions of the Government,
and what it behoved them to do. They came to the unani-
mous conclusion that it was their duty to go with an im-
posing force to the mouth of the Peiho ; and Rear-Admiral
Hope said that such was his interpretation of his instruc-
tions. Where could he have received those instructions,
except from the Admiralty of which the right hon. baronet
was the first lord. (Hear.) And-now the right hon. baronet
came down with an air of surprise, wondering how it was
that the present Ministry could have involved the country
in a war, and calling upon them to account for it. It was
at least something out of character for the right hon. gen-
tleman to do this. (Hear.) Our representatives in China
had done what they had been commanded to do ; they had
gone to the mouth of the Peiho with an imposing force.
They had then no instructions. Lord Malmesbury was
quite right in saying that he had given no instructions to
Mr. Bruce or Rear-Admiral Hope to re-enter the river
with a force or to clear the passage. But having gone
there, and without instructions, they found themselves, as
a British plenipotentiary and Admiral, in a natural and
very considerable difficulty. The Chinese had a way of
carrying shields with very frightful heads upon them--
most daring and terrific countenances ; these they sup-
posed would frighten their enemies, and cause them to run
away ; it' they did not, they were very apt to run away
themselves. (Laughter.) If our plenipotentiary in China
had gone with a very imposing force to the mouth of the
Peiho, and, 'lading the passage closed, had turned round
and sailed back to Hong Kong, he would have been
imitating not the most honourable part of the Chinese
policy. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet was himself
in a great degree responsible for what Mr. I,lruce and Ad-
miral Hope, having English hearts and feeling English
pride, lieu done on that occasion. We had first demanded
an explanation; but finding that the Emperor of China had
sanctioned these proceedings—though every one denied this
—we have asked an apology. What were we to do more ?
The right hon. baronet had quoted his (Lord John's) state-
ment—that our only business in China was trade, but he
had added to that, security for the property and lives of
British subjects. (Hear, hear.) After a British force had
attempted to go up the Peiho, with the view of obtaining
the ratification of the treaty of Tein-tsin, after they had
been treacherously attacked, and had lost in'killed and
wounded between 400 and 500 men—if we had then humbly
asked permission to have the treaty railed, without a word
more on our part, we should have been exposing the pro-
perty and lives of every British trader to certain risk, and
probably a great many to certain destruction. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. baronet asked what was our present policy
in China. The Government, in the first place, had asked
that the treaty of Tein-tsin should be ratified, with an apo-
logy, and no further compensation was asked. The French
Government had sent out orders to ask for compensation.
Mr. Bruce represented the danger that there would be in
making a separate demand from France ; therefore the Go-
vernment had placed in his ultimatum a similar demand. It
did not ar pear that this demand really made any difference
in the Chinese answer, which was a total refusal of our
terms. The question then was, whether the force that had
been sent should not proceed, and must not obtain the
terms that were asked. Could any one say that thotie terms
had not been moderate and reasonable ? But the question
before the committee was, whether they would sanction the
expense that had been incurred—an expense caused by a
policy which the Government was ready to defend, and for
which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues wore as
responsible as they were. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE believed that by occupying a
strong point in the centre of China—one commanding the
river navigation of the country—we might soon make the
Emperor o China very glad to give us security for all that
the interests of our commerce in China demanded.
Sir C. NAPIER thought it was wrong to send a diplo-
matist aloig with the admiral and general in China, and to
give him so much power over them. Admiral Hope and
General Straubenzee, if they had been left to themselves,
would have managed much better. If they had not been
goaded on as they were by Mr. Bruce, we should have been
spared that affair at the Peiho, and this large sum of money
to be paid for the war. It was the same when Lord Elgin
was there, and he tried to exercise a similar influence over
Sir Michael Seymour, but that gallant officer, knowing bet-
ter than Lord Elgin how to deal with matters in China,
resisted that dangerous influence, and succeeded well in
very difficult circumstances.
The CHAIRMAN being about to put the motion to report
progress,
Lord PALMERSTON said he hoped the house would not
agree to this motion. By dividing the vote into two por-
tions the Government had taken away every reason for an
adjournment of the debate, since hon. gentlemen would be
able to deliver their sentiments on the general subject of the
China war when the second vote came on. Ho therefore
really hoped the house would consent to this vote at once.
They could not imagine of course that the session was tobe
eternal—(hear, hoar)—and they could not wish the entire
year to be devoted to the business of the House of Com-
mons. It would be extremely inconvenient to keep putting
off public business of great importance until the time when
they would scarcely have a day to spare.
Mr. B. COCIIRANE said the reason he had moved to
report progress was that he and his friends on that side had
been taken by surprise at the magnitude of this vote, which
was what none of them had ever imagined before it was laid
on the table. He also complained that no Foreign-office
despatches on this subject had been produced of later date
than the 10th of November.
Mr. DISRAELI said if the noble lord had made his
speech on the value of time at the beginning of the session,
it might have been more beneficial. Midsummer-day was
now long past, and the house was naturally looking forward
to tt termination of its labours for the session. There was
every wish to assist the Government in expediting the busi-
ness, and as on the second vote there would be another op-
portunity of making some observations on the present un-
satisfactory state of affairs in China, he would ask his hon.
friend to withdraw the motion to report progress.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. DISRAELI asked what course of proceeding the
Government intended for this day (Friday), in order to
facilitate the despatch of business.
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the first thing would
be to receive the report of the committee on this resolution,
supposing it now to be agreed to. The house would then
go into committee of supply, to take the second resolution,
and if that was concluded in time they would go into com-
mittee of ways and means.
The vote was then put by the chairman, and agreed to.
The house then resumed.
TIIE ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH)
BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. DUNLOP protested against the passing of the
measure, as there was very little hope that it would be pro •
ductive of any benefit. He should move that it be read a
third time that day three months.
Mr. E WING seconded the amendment.
Ayes ....
Noes
Majority
The bill was read a third time and passed.
THE CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered.
Mr. CHILDERS moved in clause 4 after the words
" relation to head of family," to insert " ability to read and
write."
Sir G. C. LEWIS opposed the amendment.
The amendment was negatived, and the bill, as amended,
was agreed to, and ordered to be read a third time next
Monday.

THE CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was, as amended, considered and agreed to, and
ordered to he read a third time this day.
The Crown Debts and Judgments Bill was read a second
time.
The Enclosure (No. 2) Bill was read a second time.
...,...
The Smithfield Markets, Streets, and Improvements bill
was read a third time and passed.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND)
BILL.
This bill was read a second time and passed.
The Queen's Prison Bill passed through committee, and
was reported to the house.
The Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment Bill was
considered and agreed to. ISM
id a
Thet sßecaoilnwdatyim.
Railways Act (Ireland) ( ) Amendment Bill was
re
v.tsedtoatnhis
The Weights and Measures (Ireland Bill was also read
a second time.
THE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
billamendment
crs
w consideredhich should
0 uandid
agreed to.
i‘ir. The.
eI ioiridrts '
person destroying fish in a river not wholly be-
prevent a .
be-
longing to him;
USSON
Sir J. FERG ' -L opposed the motion.
After some discussion, the house divided—
Damthenendnmieno
For the amendment
Against it ..
99-57
............
The Felony and Misdemeanor Bill passed through som-
mil tee.
The Tramways (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT (1856)

NAMD.
This bill was brought iEn
andM readENT a first time, and or-
dered to be read a second time on Monday.
The other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at twelve minutes to four o'clook.

[ADvEwrisEuzNT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Weekly Mortality.—Measles, whooping-cough, small-pox,
scarlatina, and diphtheria have caused many deaths during
the past week. These and chest complaints almost alone
embrace the Registrar's weekly report. How many of these
fatal cases might have been prevented had Holloway's oint-
ment been well rubbed into the affected parts so soon as
disease discovered itself I Upon the neck, back, and breast
this preventive ointment should be diligently rubbed every
night and morning. It will soon overcome these terrors of
the nursery ; it will avert anxiety and spare life. In pul-
monary diseases, as asthma, bronchitis, and influenza, it
will be found equally efficacious in saving the sufferer from
consumption, and expelling from the blood the cause of that
mel ,ncholy malady.

Lorrnow : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Mee, No. 112,
Strand, in the Precinct of the, Savoy, in the efAultY f
Middleeez, Friday, July 13, 18GO.