The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-14 00:00:00

red, and could not be resisted. Up to that moment the gene-
ral feeeling of the house was to express no sympathy with
the war, with a wish that it might be closed with the ut-
most speed. He could not resist the vote, but he hoped the
war might be brought to a speedy termination.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, we have heard again and again
members of the late Government inquiring as to the object
and origin of this war. Surely if any members of this house
ought to be informed on that subject it should be the mem-
bers of that Government, who sent out the Minister to China

—who appointed the admiral, and who, through the Admi-
ralty, directed that that Minister should be accompanied with
an " efficient," as one Minister said, with an "imposing'
force as.said another. (Hear, hear.) We were astonished,
and at the same time grieved by the reception of the news
from the Peiho; but these events were not of our prepara-
tion. (Hear, hear.) We had not appointed the Minister ;
we had not given him his instructions— (hear)—yet the
noble lord and the late First Lord of the Admiralty held
us responsible for these calamities. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord seems to think that we were not afflicted with
the intolligence which we received from the Peiho. (Hear.)
But why are we supposed to be less afflicted than any other
members of this house, or than any other persons in this
country, at the expenditure of lite and treasure to which
the renewal of the war will lead ? (Hear, hear.) We
grieve deeply at the renewal of the war—(cheers)—but it
behoved us, as Ministers of this country, to consider what
we ought to do. We could not take the course pursued by

the Americans. They did not send an impsin; force to
the Peiho, and they did not meet with such a calamity as
we did. (Hear, hear.) I shall not inquire whether their's
was a dignified course or not, but the time was passed
when we could have adopted it. (Hear, hear.) We were
bound to ask reparation, and to demand terms of peace for
this country by which the lives and properties of British

traders and other British subjects in China might be pro-
tected. (Hear, hear.) It is our duty to protect British
subjects there—we were bound to do it, and we will do it.
(Cheers.) I am told that this war will cost much treasure
and lead to loss of life. I regret the loss of treasure and I
regret the loss of life. But we must protect British subjects ;
we stated our policy at the commencement of the session,
and then was the time, if the noble lord disapproved of it,
to have said so, and to have taken the sense of the house on
the subject. (Cheers.) The noble lord or any one else
might have moved an address to the Crown, praying that
no military or naval force might be sent, but that we should
rest content with the disaster at the Peiho, and take no
steps toresent it—(hear)—that we should continue without
the treaty of Tien-tsin, without any other than the usual
relations of peace, and that we should not prosecute any-
thing like hostile preparations. (Hear.) That was in the
power of the noble lord, and if he entertained his present
opinions then, why did he not take that course ? (Hear.)
But I am told that, for the sake of morality, we ought not
to go to war with China ; but it is an odd way of teach-
ing us morality to sign a treaty with us, and when our
Minister comes to ratify that' treaty, to give him no notice
that he could not be received by the usual route to enter
into friendly negotiations—to say nothing of a force placed
to interrupt him, to accept his announcement that he means
to take a certain route, the common and usual highway to
the capital, and then to place on that road an army and can-
nons prepared with the exact range in order treacherously
to destroy him and the force which accompanied him. (Ap-
plause, cries of hear, hear, and no, no.) This is the way
in which the Chinese have endeavoared to teach us mora-
lity. (No, no, and cries of hear, hear.) I know not that,
by submitting to that course, we should gain anything on
the side of morality. (Hear, hear.) But lam certain that
the terms we proposed after the dreadful calamity were not
severe but moderate—terms which require, no doubt, a dis-
avowal and an apology for the proceedings which have been
taken ; but with regard to the future we propose to live in
amity with the Chinese nation on the terms of that treaty to
which the Emperor of China has already assented, and we
ask to have nothing added to it. (Hear.) It is absurd to
argue that because we are opposed to one war we may not
be in favour of another arising from very different causes.
(Hear.) To enter into a new war with China is undoubtedly
a great calamity. I believe that the Chinese themselves
are not hostile to the English traders who resort to their
shores ; on the contrary, the relations of trade have con-
tinued from the day of the .Peiho to the present time.
(Hear.) Our orders have been as much as possible to confine
the war to those who were engaged in it, and not to extend
it to innocent persons who were pursuing their usual avo-
cations, and who were willing to enter with us into rela-
tions of amity. I believe those friendly relations will con-
tinue, and that it will be a struggle merely between the Eng-
lish and French forces on the one hand, and the Chinese
forces on the other. I believe, also, that the war will be
one of short duration. (Hear, hear.) But I say again it is
our duty to protect the lives and property of British sub-
jects, which havelbeen endangered by the act of the Chinese
Government, which, in defiance of a solemn treaty, attacked
our soldiers and our sailors in a manner for which we are
bound to demand reparation; and we are bound also to
place our relations with that country in such a state that
the Emperor of China and his Ministers shall respect this
nation as one which is at least equal to the Chinese in every
quality which
Mr. T. BARING said, as far as commerce was concerned,
no event could be more unfortunate than the present war.
' (Hear, hear.) It was unfortunate for the interests of
trade that we should ever have insisted on going up to
Pekin. It was not by forcing an entrance to the Feiho, or
sending a Minister to Pekin, that trade would be advanced.
The noble lord said it was a question of morality—that he
wanted to teach the Chinese morality.
Lord J. RUSSELL:explained—What I said was this—
that hon. gentlemen opposite said that, for the sake of mo-
rality, they ought not to make war; and he replied to that
observation; but he did not say they wished to teach mora-
lity to the Chinese.
Mr. BARING continued—What he objected to was,
that they acted towards China as they would with France,
or any other country in Europe, while it was well known
that the Chinese entertained views different from every one
else. His own belief was that, if they forced diplomacy on
them, they would have a great deal of difficulty before them,
and would never do much except to damage the country by
forcing it into a constant and perpetual warfare.
Sir C. NAPIER observed that the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield and the hon. member for Liskeard ob-
jected to the war, and he wished to knew whether France
and England had the same objects in view. He (Sir C. Na-
pier) would ask why did not Lord Elgin stop there ?
Lord R. CECIL cast all the blame of these wars on
the officials who represented the British Government
abroad. The present war was occasioned by Mr. Bruce,
the late war by Sir John Bowring, Mr. Murray brought
about the Persian war, and Lord Dalhousie the Burmese.
It was not the English Government, but those individuals
who brought these difficulties on the country. For his own
part he wished they treated China as an European Power,
because if they did so they would not allow officials to act
as they did.

Lord PALMERSTON observed that the noble lord who
just sat down was inclined to think that the officials of dif-
ferent administrations abroad neglected their duty by drag-
ging this country into war. Now, he would venture to say
that any one who looked into the circumstances would find
they did their duty, no matter what hon. gentlemen said to
the contrary. The hon. gentleman the member for Hunt-
ingdon misunderstood what was said by his noble friend,
The hon. gentleman said that the British Minister wanted
to go to Pekin to advance trade, and that it was only at
Shanghai and Canton trade could be found. The hon.
gentleman also said that trade was all they wanted, and
they should therefore not insist on having a Minister at
Pekin. But could trade be secure, or commerce carried on,
if (English subjects were not sustained and protected in
those right acquired by treaty ? If they sent persons into
foreign countries without having their safety secured pre-
viously by treaty, their lives and properties would not be
safe for a single moment. The hon. gentleman was too
well aware that his arguments were entirely inconsistent
with notorious facts. Did not the hon. gentleman remem-
ber with what acclamation the treaty made by Sir Henry
Pottinger was hailed in this country, and was it not noto-
rious that the benefits since derived from it fully justified
the policy then pursued ? Then as to the war at Canton,
though some hon. members did not approve of it, the
country thought differently, and most assuredly Sir
John Bowring had nothing to do with that transaction.
He thought the observations made upon him were unjust
and injurious, for he had no more to do. with bringing
about the war than hon. gentlemen themselves. Then,
with regard to the recent occurrence, the late Government
authorised the treaty of Tien-tsin, and sent out instruc-
tions that the Minister should demand its ratification with
an efficient force. He might remind them that Lord Elgin
was not sent out to establish a trade for the merchants 'at
Pekin ; but it was at Pekin the ratifications of the treaty
were to be exchanged, and without that treaty the corn=
inercial transactions at Canton, Shanghai, Ningpo, and
other places would be put in a state of jeopardy, in which
it was not the duty of the Government to place British
merchants and their enterprises. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman had said that the Government had dealt with
the Chinese according to the forms of diplomacy known in
Europe. He must know that of all the nations of the werld
the Chinese were the people that attached the most value to
forms. (Hear, hear.) With them forma were matter of
substance and importance. (Hear, hear.) There was no
nation which, attached more importance to the most minute
gradations of form, and with whom it was of greater im-
portance to maintain our own dignity and assert our own
right by binding them with those formalities,
the value of
which they knew almost better than any other nations.(Hear, hear.) The object was to obtain a ratificationof the treaty that would be binding on the Emperor of
China. The Emperor of China by an edict sanctioned
every article and word of that treaty. (Hear, hear.) But
the Emperor of China knew as well as any one in
Europe, that the treaty was not ratified, and that it was
not binding upon the sovereign by whose negotiation it
was concluded. And though the Emperor of China had
acknowledged and sanctioned every word of that treaty he
to break, eveiy—
article
which
hvhoure
by
yd
histo hold himself
edict had free
sanctioned
d
and approved.
(Hear, hear.) That was a state of things which it was
impossible for the i
British Government to submit to, and
therefore it was necessary that a ratification should Fe
exchanged. They could only be exchanged at Pekin, and
itwas not for the purpose of trade that the Minister was
going to Pekin, but to obtain the ratification of the treaty, ,