Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POLICY-Debates on the foreign policy of the Government in regard to China, Japan, and Poland-The unfortunate operations in AshanteeMotion of Sir John Hay, inculpating the Government, defeated by a very small majority-The rebellion in New Zealand-Debates on colonial policy and on imperial obligations towards dependencies-Guarantee of a loan to New Zealand to meet the charges of the war.-The Civil War in America-Difficulties arising from the relations of this country towards the belligerents-Complicated questions of international law in reference to naval matters-Evasive buildings of ships for Confederate Service in English yards-Seizure of steam rams at Birkenhead by order of our Government-Remonstrances and complaints on that accountDebates in both Houses on the conduct of Ministers in reference to the Confederate cruisers-Case of the "Georgia "-Speech of Mr. T. Baring in the House of Commons respecting the reception of this vessel in English harbours-Statement of the law by the Attorney-General-Debate on the system of predatory cruising adopted by the Confederate States-Justification of their own conduct by the Government-Enlistment of soldiers in Great Britain for the service of the Federal army-Repeated appeals to the Government on this subject-The Marquis of Clanricarde and Mr. Roebuck urge the Government to suppress the illegal practice of recruiting-Explanations of Earl Russell and of Lord Palmerston - Facilities afforded to American enlisting agents by the mania for emigration from IrelandWarning statement of Lord E. Howard as to the system of kidnapping then in progress.-The Indian Budget-Highly favourable statement of the financial condition of India by Sir Charles Wood-Surplus of revenue over expenditureRemarks on this statement in the House of Commons.

THE limited intervention of the British Government in the civil war in China, which, after a desolating contest of fifteen years, was in this year nearly brought to a close by the extinction of the rebellion, became the subject of discussion on two or three occasions in the House of Commons, when the policy adopted by our Government was unfavourably criticized by some members. Early in the Session Colonel Sykes called attention to the massacre of Taepings, which had taken place after the surrender of the town of Soochow, in which it was stated that no less than 30,000 men, women, and children, had been put to death. Viscount Palmerston stated, that the British Government viewed this transaction with the utmost abhorrence. He further explained the course which they had taken, with respect to intervention in the war. He considered that it was for the interests of this country that the rebellion in China should be put down. It had no element of success, and therefore it was desirable that order should as soon as possible be restored. To assist in this, two Orders in Council had been issued-one permitting Captain Sherard Osborn to fit out a naval force to assist the Imperialists, the other authorizing British subjects to enter into the service of the Emperor of China. Captain Osborn's expedition having failed, the order as to it had been revoked. The other order had also been revoked, in consequence of the conduct of the Chinese officials at Soochow. The

1

1

Crown could not grant permission in individual cases to take service with the Emperor of China.

Shortly afterwards Mr. Liddell called the attention of the House of Commons, by a formal motion, to the attitude taken by our Government in regard to the Chinese contest, and proposed a Resolution, "That, in the opinion of the House, further interference on the part of this country in the civil war in China, is impolitic and unnecessary." After reviewing the policy which the English Government had of late years adopted with regard to China, the hon. gentleman contended, that all our attempts to uphold the Mantchu dynasty as against the Taepings, had been most injurious to our character, influence, and interests in the East. He sought in vain for any reasonable ground of interference in Chinese affairs; for our trade with that country had not only not fallen off, but had rather augmented. It was not his intention to ask the House to pass a censure upon the Government, although he considered their policy erroneous in very many respects; but he wished them simply to join him in the attempt to dissuade Ministers from continuing in a course, which was unprecedented in the past, and which he hoped would find no favour in the future.

Mr. Layard denied that there was any intention to establish a British protectorate in China, but admitted that Sir Frederick Bruce, our minister there, had made mistakes, and, in some instances, exceeded his instructions. With regard to the Chinese policy of the Government, it was inspired by the desire to avoid all interference in the civil war, so long as it did not approach within the thirty-five miles' radius of the Treaty ports; and he held that that policy had been successful. The proofs were, the vast augmentation that had taken place, in the number of ships employed in the trade, and in the amount of exports and imports. Moreover, English subjects could now travel with safety through the country; and a telegraph had been established, in connexion with the city of Pekin. He believed there was not a respectable merchant in China, who would not be horrified at the thought of our policy being reversed; and argued that Her Majesty's Government was rather entitled to credit than deserving of blame for the course they had pursued.

Mr. W. E. Forster said that the question really before the House was, whether the Government were to be sanctioned in continuing their interference, for the purpose of putting down the Taeping rebellion; and that question the Under-Secretary had not attempted to answer. He complained of their policy, that it had not only not been right with regard to China, but not fair towards the House; and condemned our recent operations against the Taepings, as a species of bucaneering. Captain Sherard Osborn, however, had acted nobly in returning home. He had resisted all temptations, and thus saved Ministers from consequences such as they would have rued for years to come. With regard to protecting the Treaty ports, and our Treaty rights, he should like to know

whether the capture of Soochow, which was accomplished chiefly through the assistance of British officers, was necessary. In looking back upon the history of the past, it was impossible to deny that we had had a good deal to do in creating the anarchy now prevailing in China. The end of this policy would, he feared, be, to throw another Chinese war on our hands, and oblige us to effect the conquest of the country.

Further debate on this occasion was precluded by the House being counted out. Later in the Session the question was again raised, by Mr. Baxter, who strongly impugned the policy of the Queen's Ministers in this instance. He objected to the policy of the Government in supporting the Imperial Government of China, as being bad in principle and not likely to succeed. He protested against the expenditure of the money of the tax-payers of this country, in an attempt to keep up a dynasty which was effete. He contended that the policy which had been adopted, was in distinct violation of neutrality, in the contest between the Imperial Government and the Taepings. He asked whether Her Majesty's Government meant, in the future, to adhere strictly to the defence of British property, in the three Treaty ports of China, without any interference on behalf of the Imperial dynasty.

Viscount Palmerston said our Chinese policy was founded on rights and on the material interests of this country, and was not, in the strictest sense, one of neutrality. He pointed out that the general policy of this country towards China was guided by the principle of the extension of commerce, and all the interferences of Her Majesty's Government had been rendered necessary by circumstances connected with the protection of the mercantile interests of Englishmen. As to the cruelty and perfidy of the Imperialists, however that might be, the Taepings were infinitely the worse of the two; each of them possessing the normal characteristics of the Chinese. With regard to the existing state of things, so far as had been ascertained, the Taeping rebellion had been narrowed, while there had been a manifest improvement in the system of the Imperial Government. The object of Her Majesty's Government in assisting the Chinese Government in the collection of its revenue, and in allowing the services of British subjects to be placed at its disposal, was the restoration of order in the empire, the existence of which would be most advantageous to the commercial operations of this country in China. There was no intention of renewing the permission to British officers to serve the Imperial Government, which had been revoked; and none of interfering actively between the Government and the rebels, beyond what was necessary for the protection of English trade and com

merce.

Mr. Liddell and Colonel Sykes again censured the policy of our Government, which was vindicated by Mr. Gregson, who said that the object of our intervention was limited to a defence of the Treaty ports, and the preservation of British life and property. He much

regretted the failure of Captain Sherard Osborn's expedition, the object of which was very beneficial to the interests of China. Mr. Kinnaird supported the same views.

A more powerful attack upon the Government, in respect of their policy of interference in a foreign contest, was afterwards made by Mr. Cobden, who, in accordance with the doctrines which he had consistently maintained in regard to foreign policy, objected in toto to the intervention of England in the civil war between the Imperialists and the Taepings.

On the 31st of May the member for Rochdale asked the House of Commons to agree to a Resolution moved by him, declaring that the policy of non-intervention by force of arms in the internal political affairs of foreign countries, which we professed to observe in our relations with the states of Europe and America, should be observed in our intercourse with the empire of China. In reviewing the state of our relations with that country he insisted that it was of the most unsatisfactory character, especially so far as our commerce was concerned. China, he remarked, was the only foreign country where we had systematically endeavoured to force a trade by violence and war; and, curiously enough, it was the only country which formed an exception to the general progress which was apparent every where else. In about twenty years we had had three wars with China, the object of which was to open up, as it was called, trade with that country; but the result had been that, whenever there was a war, our merchants, stimulated by anticipations of extended markets, sent out large quantities of produce and reaped nothing but disappointment, collapse, and reaction. In fact, during the last thirty-five years, China was the only country that had disappointed us; for at the end of that period she stood only twelfth in the rank of our customers, and even below Egypt. The moral of all was that we could not extend our commerce by means of war and violence, and he recommended as the best method of getting out of our difficulties in China the establishment of a number of free ports at islands on the coast, in the same manner as we had done at Singapore. He objected to persisting in a policy that was most costly alike to our national character and our material interests; and he urged that the Government ought to restrain their representatives at the Antipodes, revert to the policy enunciated by the Duke of Wellington, and terminate our direct relations with China, for it was the opinion of the Duke that we had no business to force our political connexions upon that country. In conclusion, the hon. member recommended the House, as the wisest course to adopt, at the commencement of the next Session to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into our commercial relations with China and Japan; and impressed upon the House and the commercial community that it was equally their duty and their interest to show to these Pagan nations the superior brightness of our Christianity and our civilization.

Mr. Layard opposed the motion. He said if Government had

followed the advice given on various sides of the House, the most disastrous results would have ensued, not only to our commerce with China, but to the lives of a large number of British subjects. Disputing the representations of Mr. Cobden as to the increase of the trade with China, he contended that that increase had been immense in the course of the last few years. His hon. friend had recommended that a number of free ports should be established on the Chinese coast, but he had omitted to state how his suggestion was to be carried out. The truth was that Shanghai had already virtually become a free port. Hong Kong, too, was a free port, and the experiment had to a certain extent answered. To establish free ports, however, it would be necessary that the Chinese Government should cede to us such islands as Chusan and Formosa; but he thought it was very unlikely that they would do so, seeing that such ports would at once absorb the whole of the external trade of the empire. The thing was, therefore, impossible. Moreover, if these islands were ceded to us, other Powers might follow our example; and even if that policy were carried out, the probability was that we might get into such difficulties as to lead to serious complications. Mr. Layard also justified the policy of the Government in obtaining a certain number of Treaty ports, and defending them against the marauding Taepings, whose grotesque Christianity had little more to commend it to our sympathies than the religion of Buddh.

After some observations in support of the motion, by Lord Naas, Mr. Liddell, and other members, Viscount Palmerston said that the House ought not so much to consider the relations between the Anglo-Chinese force and the Taepings, as the large results which had followed the opening of diplomatic intercourse with China. The expeditions under Captain Osborn and Major Gordon had failed on account of the jealousy of the Chinese themselves; but Her Majesty's Government would not have sanctioned their employment had it not been considered absolutely necessary to assist in putting down a state of civil war which threatened to compromise the commercial interests of this country. The object of England in establishing herself at the Treaty ports was not to obtain territory. All she wanted was a basis for her commerce, and this could not be obtained as long as there were hordes of revolutionists congregated in their neighbourhood. He claimed for the policy which this country had pursued from the time of the abolition of the East India Company's charter down to the present moment that it had been eminently successful. Its object was deserving of the approval of the country and the exertions of the Government; and having achieved the great point of entering into friendly and direct relations with the central Government of China, he was persuaded that those relations were not likely to be shaken, and that with the continuance of them our interests in China would every year increase.

Mr. Bright observed that, looking back over the past thirty years, there was, perhaps, no portion of our annals of which we

« PreviousContinue »