The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-01 00:00:00

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

Mr. COWPER begged to correct an error in the state-
ment which he made in reference to this bill when Eit was
before the house the other evening. He said that
the bill was promoted by the London, Dover, and
Chatham Railway Company. He found that that com-
pany had declined to take any part in, the undertaking,
which was promoted by another company.
VESSELS AND TONNAGE, &c.
Mr. HORSFALL moved for a return, showing the
number of vessels and tonnage entered inwards and cleared
outwards at the twelve principal ports of the United King-

dom ; also the official and declared value of imports and
exports for each of the said ports, during the year 1860 (in
continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 450, of session
1860).—Ordered.
THE EVICTIONS AT DERILYREAGII.

Mr. SCULLY gave notice that on Monday next he
would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Go-
vernment would fix a day for the discussion of the subject,
which was a matter of great interest in Ireland.

ALLEGED GRIEVANCES IN THE POST-
OFFICE.
Sir G. BOWYER asked the Chancellor of the Exche.

quer when the Post-office report would be laid before Par•
liament, and what her Majesty's Government were pre.

pared to do for the redress of grievances in the Post-office ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
there were several papers relating to the subject of the
administration of the Post-office which were under the con-

sideration of the Government. He was not able to give an
answer to the question of the hon. member as to laying any
papers relating to the matter before the house, but he
hoped shortly to supply full information on the subject.

presented thit Father Daly had made in regard to this sub-

ject were quite unauthorised.

CHINA.
Mr. DUNLOP, in moving a resolution on this subject,
said that there Ras reason to believe that all the

papers relating to this subject had not been laid before the
house. The hon. gentleman entered at considerable length
into the subject, and contended that unless the Government
acted with the greatest discretion, and pursued the strictest
neutrality, there was a danger of this counts y being in-

volved in another war with China.
Mr. BAXTER seconded the motion, and expressed his
conviction that the Government had not been acting with
neutrality. He read some correspondence in support of
this statement, from which it would appear that the British
and French commanders had openly favoured the imperialist
cause in China. He also cited passages from the work
published by Mr. Alcock. Everybody that paid attention
to the state of China must be aware that the Tartar dynasty
was on the wane, and yet it was that dynasty that this
country was endeavouring to sustain.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could have wished that his
hon. friend who had made this motion would have had the
goodness to wait till some of the papers had been laid on the
table. His hon. friend knew very well that he (Lord J. Rus-
sells had said that when they received accounts from China
the papers would be laid on the table. They received some
papers some time ago, showinghoWmatters were in progress;
but as they did not give complete information he thought
it better to wait, and he had this evening laid on the table
papers to the present date. This he imagined was interest-
ing to the house and the country, as showing the actual
state of affairs. The hon, gentleman who made this motion,
and the hon. gentleman who seconded it, might be light or
wrong as to what happened two years ago, when Lord Elgin
went up the Yangtze .Kiang, but that was not the question
before the house. The present was a totally different state
of affairs, and what was interesting was what was the case
now. Well, the case at present was that Lord Elgin, having
given directions that that part of the treaty which said that
the river Yangtze-Kiang should be open for trade, made a
provisional arrangement with Prince Kung for that pur-
pose, and Sir James Hope went up the river, and at Nankin
he made an arrangement with the chief of the Taepings.
'The noble lord read the agreement, which was to the effect

that British subjects were to be unmolested, both in their

persons and property; that British v. ssels of war were to
be stationed at certain places mentioned, and their com-
manders would receive directions to interfere in no way
whatever, excepting for the purpose of protecting their
countrymen,if it were necessrry to do so.] The Commander-
in-Chief said that British arms would be used to protect
British persons and property, but there was to be no inter-
ference between the Taepings and the Imperialists. That
was what he called neutrality. That was the present state
of affairs. Now, with regard to what the hon. gentle-
man said as to what we were doing there. Very often
it was found that persons abroad, who did not know
exactly what the authorities were doing, wrote home
letters objecting to what was going on, and al-
most always blaming those authorities of whose

acts they had not a thorough knowledge. But surely the
papers produced here on the authority of Sir James Hope
and others, ought to be a more correct narrative of facts

than that which was to be found in the correspondence to
which his hon. friend had alluded. His hon. friend said
that, whatever faults or crimes might be charged to the Tae-
pings, the imperialists were very much worse. That might
be so, but for his part he was much more critical than his
hon. friend. He did not say which was the worst or which
had committed the greatest excesses. He had never much
admired the civilisation, and still less the humanity, of the
Chinese, and he had no doubt that great excesses and out-
rages against humanity were committed both by the Tae-
pings and the imperialists, and which was the worst he,
being in a neutral position, could not say. Our object was
to promote our trade as much as possible, and to endeavour
both to act a neutral part and as far as we could to preserve
peace. The hon. gentleman who spoke last said it was en-
tirely the fault of the British Government and the British
agents that this civil war had not been long ago put an end
to. Now he must say he thought it would have required a
very large army in order to put an end to that civil war.
These Taepings were a very numerous body. They had got
possession of several very important cities and provinces.
In what way was it possible that we should interfere to
enable them to put down the Tartar dynasty, or to enable
the Tartar dynasty to suppress the insurrection ? He con-
ceived it was our duty not to do either the one thing or the
other. But here was what Sir J us. Hope said—" Although
large bodies of rebels are stated to be, and probably are,
overrunning the country in different directions, it is very
open to question whether they are in sufficient strength to
overcome the Imperial Government; while, on the other
hand, no reasonable prospect exists of the Imperial Govern-
ment being able to suppress the rebels. Therefore it is
likely that the civil war will be of indefinite duration ; that
the commercial towns of the empire will be destroyed,
and the most industrious provinces laid waste." He be-
lieved that that was an exact account of the state of things,
and whatever might be said by those who were admirers of
the Taepings, or by those who admired the Tartar dynasty,
he considered that when there were large bodies of men
carrying on civil war, many of the worst vagabonds and
scoundrels in the country would join the one side or the
other, not for the sake of promoting either cause, but for
the sake of the plunder and devastation which they would
be enabled to carry on by taking up arms. That was a
great misfortune, but he did not think it was in the power
of the British Government, without being guilty of an in-
terference of which everybody would disapprove, to put an
end to it. He did not think that we could properly do other-
wise than we have done, viz., to preserve a neutral attitude,
Mr. DUNLOP—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—A neutral attitude, and that was
what was expressed in the article of the treaty, neither to
assist the imperialists against the rebels, nor the rebels
against the imperialists, but to protect British persons or
British property when they were endangered. That was
the course which we had pursued in other instances, and
he did not see why we should not pursue it with regard to
China. His hon. friend seemed to think that we ought to
make some arrangement by which, when a ship came to a
Chinese port in the possession of the imperialists, the duty
should be paid in such a manner as that it should not be
required to be paid again to the rebel forces. But that
would be a very strong interference on our part.
Mr. DUNLOP said a few words in explanation.
Lord J. RU SSE LL proceeded to say that the instructions
given by her Majesty's Government had been in all cases to
preserve the neutral course which we had taken. Sir James
Hope had acted upon these instructions, and was endea-
vouring to promote trade with the districts that were in the
hands of the Taepings as well as with those that were in
possession of the imperialists. The accounts which the Go-
vernment received from China certainly betokened an im-
provement in our relations with both parties. He had that
morning read 'a letter from Canton which stated that the
customs duties were regularly paid, and that in every diffi-
culty that arose the Chinese authorities showed a disposition
to remove all obQtructions to our intercourse with the natives.
Mr. Bruce had arrived at Pekin. He had desired that there
should be no sort of ostentation in his reception; for he said
that he was merely going back to a place where he had been
before, and his entry had been quite private, but every civi.
lity had been shown him by the authorities. He (the noble
lord) submitted that when neither the Tartar dynasty was
strong enough to put down the rebels, nor the rebels to over-
come the Tartar dynasty, it was no part of our duty to take
the one side or the other. (Hear.) He could assure his
hon. friend that the views of the Government were in fa-
vour of observing a strict neutrality. He would not say
that there might not be acts of subordinate authorities—
very well intended no doubt—which might be chargeable
with the showing a bias. Nevertheless, both the Govern-
ment at home and the British authorities in China would
endeavour to observe that strict neutrality which seemed to
him to be the proper one for us to pursue.
Mr. BUCHANAN saw no reason to think that the in-
demnity would be withheld ; but he would be a sanguine
man that should venture to think the balance of payments
would be in favour of this country. We must keep up a
large
force in China, and it was more probable that we
should have to send out money than that we should have
to receive it. The question was therefore a very serious
faaprpoeua rr
epdo ioc yhihma dt ea
that
wd eedhtaodi
lie
tr
eeraesde
10.
nutro da i ffit r
ec
autly-
otinees,?howlt
with a Power whichp
raetwicasall utterly. powerless. The great
little connexion with the central mandarins were
twilnandliecGpheonvdernennit,
eanntdbemyoanindtanedpeople by a process called,, insciuteheeziti
pay-
ing it their annual tribute
expressive, language of
they exacted from the
had
dt was certain
that part of the world,
that although competitive examinatibons. "squeezing:' It
centuries
been in vogue, and although
tionS were supposed to be required of the
tislualifica-
darin, all the great offices of the empire were regularlyrcan-
put up for sale. Pekin had never till lately been full
known to the western world, and it turned out on a closer
acquaintance to be a very great sham—powerful neither for
attack nor defence. The weakness of the imperial Govern-
ment was shown in nothing so strikingly as in its utter
inability to put down the Taepings, who iu the first instance
Subsequently- they had adopted many things by
had been composed of nothing but ordinary bands of ma-
rauders.
which they hoped to win popularity—such as the opinions
of the triad societies (whatever they might be), a form of
native or Ming dynasty, which had dethroned by the
Christianity, though no doubt a vy
been degraded one, and the
Tartars. If, however, the Government could have brought
against them troops as good as those who had opposed the
march of the allies on Pekin, they would at once have
scattered them to the winds. The imperialists with whom
we had made a treaty were the weakest of the parties in
China ; and the Taepings were certainly not chargeable
with that apathy and contempt of all foreigners which
marked the adherents of the Tartar dynasty. One most
obvious breach of neutrality was the undertaking into
which we had entered to collect the dues for the Tartar
dynasty , for what would the imperialists have thought if
we had made the same kind of treaty with the Tien-Wang
at Nankin which we had made with Prince Kung, and
had appointed supervisors of customs for him ? (Hear.)
The hon. member proceeded to comment on the custom •
house system in China, which he feared would promote
smuggling. China had in all ages been the home of the
smuggler, in consequence of the peculiar formation of coast,
which was completely indented and intersected with creeks
and small bays, which offered the readiest means of retreat