The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-06 00:00:00

the new Parliament can assemble. It is no immaterial
Concern. We debated for four days upon the questions
• that have arisen, and we came to the opinion that that
which the Government deemed worthy of approval we
on the contrary thought deserving of our censure.
(Hear, hear.) Are we to agree that we will be en-
tirely mute, that votes of supply, one after the other,
are to be carried, and that we are not to ask what is to
happen during this interval ? (Hear.) My noble friend
said the other night that the object of the Government
would be to protect the lives and property of British
subjects. I have no doubt that that will be their ob-
ject, and that my noble friend will take very efficient
measures for so doing. I think that these lives and that
property have been risked not by the vote of this house
(cheers)—because it is not the echo of our vote which is
just reaching ns from China. The intelligence which is
reaching us is the intelligence of the consequences that
have been produced by the policy which the authorities
have pursued. (Cheers.) Well, then, may we not ask
while you take care to protect life and property in danger
by the policy which has been there pursued, will you
not take some means for the adjustment of those la-
mentable differences I My right hon friend who has just
sat down, said my right friend the member for Wiltshire
misrepresented the Government when he said we were
pursuing by hostilities the object of obtaining the in-
troduction of Sir J. Bowring into Canton. Tbat may
be a representation, and I think it is a very fair repre-
sentation of the state of the case ; but I and all the rest
of the house are left completely in the dark, and if we
state what we think is the object of the war, we are sure
to be told we are misrepresenting it. The consul who
demanded reparation in the case of the Arrow declared
that all the demands on that subject were satisfied. Then
we are pursuing some other object, and when my right
hon. friend is asked what that object is, he wraps him-
self up in general and obscure terms, and says we shall
settle on permanent terms our intercourse with China.
Every one will agree that it is an object to be desired,
but the question is, is this arranged on any principle
that the house has approved of ? or is it on any principle
they have disapproved of ? and, secondly, who are to be
the judges of what our future relations with China
should be ? Are they to be persons in whom this house
has no confidence ? (Hear, hear.) If that is the case, I
must say that when we are asked fir large votes in sup-
ply, it will be but reasonable that we shoal I ask the Go-
vernment to declare what are the terms that they pro-
pose to ask from China, and what are the objects they
intend to pursue, because I believe the House of Com
mons never was during the course of its existence placed
in this situation, that we should be required to show the
greatest measure of confidence in a Government whose
course of policy we disapprove—(hear, hear)—that we
should be required to give votes in supply, when at the
same time they do not declare what are the objects to
which those votes are to be applied. It does not appear
to me that it would be very difficult for them to declare
what their objects are. Ido not think there would be
any hesitation in agreeing to all those votes of which
my noble friend spoke, which would be necessary in order
to enable the Crown to appeal to the country by a disso-
lution. It may be, as many gentlemen seem to think,
the state of parties would be cleared up by a dissolution,
and I can only say, having had my attention called to
this vote, I think the noble lord did not fairly represent it
when he said the question that occurred after that vote
the other night was, whether the present Ministry should
remain in office and appeal to the country, or whether a
Ministry should be formed from a combination of the dif-
ferent parties who had joined in that vote. I think that
any person reading an account of what had occurred in
China might have come to the same result that the
house came to the other night without any concert or
combination. (Cheers.) Ido not believe that concert or
combination existed. There is a great party, as every
one knows, sitting on the opposite side of the house. I
do not know that they have a combination with any
other party, and Isuppose they would be the persons to
whom her Majesty, if she was obliged to have recourse to
other advisers, would have recourse to in vain to form a
new administration. I can only say, therefore, that any
charge which may be made, and which no doubt will be
got up for the elections—(hear)—of combinations, fac-
tions, and unscrupulous combinations of parties in order
to attain certain objects, I believe all, those charges are
entirely false and calumnious. (Cheers.) There is no one
in a condition to prove them, or who can bring to light
evidence in support of them. A great part of those who
sit on this side of the house concurred in that vote ; and
I believe, however the Government may admire the acts
of Sir J. Bowring in China, they concur in disapproving
of theta. They consider that a question—l care not who
ther it be a question which concerns our relations with
China, but a question which concerns war and hostilities,
which concerns the destruction of many lives, and which
has reference to great calamities—that was a question
on which they were bound to give an opinion irrespec-
tive of party. For my part I must, having heard that
vote of the house sometimes directly and sometimes
covertly attacked, express my belief that there is no
vote that will do more honour to this Parliament than
that vote. If this Parliament is to have existence
no longer it will redound always to their credit
that when they were calved upon by the voice of their
country to engage in a contest with a great power, with
one of the greatest powers in the world, they never hesi-
tated. They gave any supplies that were asked ; they
contributed any forces that were proposed ; they voted
arty number of men that were required ; they never
showed the least unwillingness, the least backwardness,
in contending with that erect power; but when it ap-
peared that we were engaged in a war with an tin warlike,
with an almost defenceless people, that the-, interpesing
an interruption to the proceedings of the executive go-
vernment which they hal not interposed before, they, or,
the part not less of humanity than of the honour of their
country, censured the proceedings of the Geverninetit.
(Cheers.) I think that the vote was not only honourable
in, itself, but I believe it will be an honourable precedent
in the future history of this country. Parliaments have
been too prone to approve of hostilities without consider-
ing, and weighing, and examining the grounds on which
those hostilities have been commenced. I think that this
house has shown that while they are ready to make any
sacrifice for a just and necessary war they will not ap-
prove blindly of any hostilities for which no just cause
can be made out. After so much has been said against
the vote of the other night, attributing it to any other
motive but a desire to arrive at a fair and honest decision
upon the merits of the question, I cannot but protest
against those imputations, and I cannot but again express
my hope that before this debate is ended my noble friend
who has the privilege ef reply will give us some notion,
some idea, of what are the objects of carrying on this
war with China, and whet are the results that he is de
sirous of arriving at,
Mr. ROEBUCK—I rise to protest against one state-
ment of the noble lord at the head of the Government,
who has described his defeat as the result of a combina-
tion of parties, and by a combination of parties it is ob-
vious he meant a conspiracy of parties. (Cheers.) It is
true that hon. gentlemen of different political opinions
found themselves in the same lobby; but why should that
circumstance be considered proof of a conspiracy ? I
speak for myself and for a great number of gentlemen in
this house, and I must say that I knew nothing of any
combination of parties. (Cheers.) We were called upon
. to give a vote upon a matter which involved the honour
of our country ; that honour I deemed to have been
dangered by the conduct of the noble lord,and I voted-
against him. 1 did that, sir, not because I agreed with
bon. gentlemen opposite, but because I agreed with the
resolution. (Cheers.) I thought that dishonour and dis-
grace awaited my country, and I thought the resolution
was the only shield which could be placed between us
and dishonour; and it was on that account I lent it my
humble support. (Cheers.) Sir, we were toll that we
were to-night to hear an explanation. We have had no
explanation ; but we have heard a trumpery statement
submitted to the house, and call-d an explanation.
(Cheers.) An explanation of what ? Of their policy ? No,
sir, they have no policy—(loud cheers)—and they can
therefore give us no explanation. The fact is, sir, a set of
men who act in the name of England have disgraced Eng-
land. This set of men have been upheld by the noble
lord, and this house, coming to the rescue of Eegland
and of England's honour, has declared against the noble
lord and his Government. (Cheers ) If the noble lord
had eoutinued to be what he declared hims-lf in times
Past, a supporter of liberal institutions, we would not
have deserted him. It is he rather who has deserted us.
The noble lord went where we would not follow him
;
and because we felt he had disgraced Englan.l, we voted
against hire (Cheers)
Mr. 111`(REGOR • A. question has been put to the
noble lord at the heaTl -of her MajestY's Goverment by
the hon. gentlemati thebeen
answered- member for the Wet Riding,
done with the representative It is this : What is to be
'sewnetritdai'vesi of the Gov,-rnenent at
Hong Kong ? (Cheers.)
they delight rtoJhohn Bowring still to
be the man whom
honour? ? Are they
still going to put confidence in a
been
has been de-
clared by the vote of this house to havew gailty, not
of an indiscretion, but of a crime? (Che:res7) Is he stir
thate °isstimoienrciful
to represent the most powerful anfid4
Sovereign in the world ? Ie the
China to be under his contri 1? I hope that tho future
fate of Sir John Bowring will be decided upon before the
noble lord when he again addresses the house sits down.
Mr. GLADSTONE—When at the end of what I must
be permitted to call the very bare and meagre statement
of the noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Govern:

ment the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire rose in his place and stated that he would
afford every facility for disposing of public business, I
have not the smallest doubt the right hon. gentleman
assumed that which we have since found from tha an-
swers of the right hon. gentlemen who have addressed
the house that we should have been wrong if we had too
hastily assumed—(cheers)—I mean that which my noble
friend the member` or the City of London has argued
in terms worthy o himself, and in terms which will
carry conviction both to this house and to the country.
(Loud cheers.) I can hardly express the amazement
with which I heard the speeches of the right hon. gen-
tlemen the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department. (Cheers.) The
Secretary of State for the Home Department says he
did not understand the resolution of my hon. friend the
member for the West Biding. Sir, I know nothing •