not to come within 34 miles of Shanghai, the Taepings had broken the agreement. To protect the large amount of British property in that town the Chinese Government had asked some British officers to organize a fleet of gunboats to suppress the pirates, and these officers had received the sanction of the Admiralty to comply with the request. Up to the present time we had kept a police of small vessels there, and the time had now come when we must either leave China and the recently opened ports, or afford the assistance which the Chinese Government required. was no objection to produce the papers moved for. There Lord Stratford de Redcliffe supported the course adopted by the Government. Earl Russell said that, although the policy of the Government seemed to violate the neutrality we had so far maintained, the circumstances were exceptional. The rapid increase of our trade in China rendered it necessary to defend the vast interests we had there at stake. Ningpo had in consequence been retaken, as it was found that the Taepings would not refrain from injuring property and molesting trade. When the rebels approached Shanghai the French and English Ambassadors were convinced that steps must be taken to defend the port, or all trade would be destroyed. Every account of the Taepings yet received agreed in this, that they were powerful to destroy, but unable to create, a Government. Under these circumstances, and by the advice of Mr. Bruce, it had been determined not to aid the Chinese Government in supVOL. CIV. pressing the Taepings, but to defend the treaty ports, and thereby to allow the Chinese Government to concentrate its efforts against the rebels. Our object in so acting was not to provoke war, but to ensure peace, for the development of trade depended on the suppression of the rebellion. Earl Grey in reply condemned the policy of our Government as impolitic, unjust, and calculated to embroil us with a large portion of the Chinese people. The motion was agreed to. In the House of Commons, the policy of our Government in regard to the recent operations in China was called in question by Mr. White, one of the members for Brighton, who moved a Resolution in these terms::--"That it is the opinion of this House that Her Majesty's Ministers should direct the British authorities and commanders of Her Majesty's naval and military forces in China to avoid any intervention beyond that absolutely necessary for the defence of those British subjects who abstain from all interference in the civil war now raging in that country." In a speech of some length Mr. White severely censured Lord Palmerston's Chinese policy, which had once more dragged us into what in reality amounted to war in that country. We had been dragged by that aggressive policy into an open rupture with the Taepings, and pledged to an alliance against them with the Imperial Government. He demanded an explanation of this from Lord Palmerston, who, however, he feared, was always disposed to support British officials abroad in acts of aggression, [K] Mr. Layard (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) described the Taepings as a mere band of ruthless marauders and plunderers, whose political and religious system was alike absurd, and quoted the opinion to that effect of men who had at first thought them worthy of support. Our interference was limited to the protection of our own interests from these robbers, and to giving a moral support to the Government, representing the party of order, as against the Taepings, representing the party of disorder. Mr. Cobden expressed his great dissatisfaction with Mr. Layard's speech. We ourselves were partly responsible for the present state of anarchy in China, and our Chinese policy was radically wrong. Our attempts to open up a trade with China by an aggressive policy were not only unjustifiable, but had not actually been followed by any real extension of commerce. Our true policy was to avoid, as much as possible, all political contact with China, and let trade and commerce run in their natural courses. He also recommended our withdrawal from some of the treaty ports, and the concentration of our trade at Shanghai and Canton. Lord Palmerston said that if, as Mr. Cobden asserted, the Taeping rebellion was the result of our wrongfully undermining the Imperial Government, he was bound, on his own principle that a just retribution would overtake those who refused to redress an acknowledged wrong, to assist the Chinese Government in putting down that rebellion. He defended the policy now pursued in China at great length, asserting that it was the best possible both for the interest of this country and China, and for the encouragement of trade. The Taepings were the enemies of all order, trade, and property, and in simply defending our treaty ports and their immediate neighbourhood from their attacks we were merely doing what our interest compelled us to do. In conclusion he hoped that Mr. White and Mr. Cobden having shown that they could "sympathise with the lowest and basest of mankind," would not persevere with their motion. Mr. Whiteside supported the Resolution. Mr. Walpole, though disapproving of the policy of our Government in China, opposed the Resolution, as being a direction to the Government from the House on a subject on which they were imperfectly informed. The motion was negatived on a division by 197 to 88. The operations which were taking place in Mexico, under the combined forces of France and England, were made the object of a rather severe criticism, just before the end of the Session, by Lord Robert Montagu, who accused the Queen's Government of needless intervention, and undue subserviency to France. War had been entered into, the noble Lord said, without the consent or even knowledge of Parliament. When, too, a convention had been agreed upon, giving us the redress we sought, our Government had, in deference to France, who had clearly outwitted us, repudiated the arrangement. He concluded by moving for certain papers. The conduct of our Government in these transactions was vindicated by Mr. Layard, UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs. Money had been pillaged, he said, from British residents by authority of the Mexican Government, and the diplomatic rights of our Ambassador violated, and we had clearly a right to demand and obtain redress for such outrages. Juarez, on obtaining the Presidency, had authorized fresh outrages, and the Mexican Legislature had rejected the convention entered into with him, so that it could not be said that we had been offered redress. The representative of France, however, under the influence, apparently, of General Almonte, had advanced into the interior, in the hope of rallying round him a monarchical party which in reality did not exist. The English and Spanish representatives feeling this to be beyond the objects for which they were acting in Mexico, had refused to be parties to an attempt to raise up a feeling for the throne in Mexico, contrary to the wishes of the people. As to Sir C. Wyke's convention with General Doblado, it had simply been repudiated by Government on account of its objectionable character, as involving us in monetary transactions with the United States, and had it not been for the promise of mortgaging the waste lands of Mexico to the American Government, that settlement might have been tolerably satisfactory. Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, while he thought some intervention had been rendered absolutely necessary, accused Government of having entered into the joint expedition with a clear knowledge that both France and Spain meditated interference with the internal affairs of the country. Mr. A. W. Kinglake then rose to address the House, but there not being forty members present, it was counted out. One of the latest proceedings in the House of Commons, before the expiration of the Session, was the Annual Statement respecting the Finances of India, which was made by the Minister for that Department, Sir Charles Wood. Some additional interest was imparted to this statement by the dissension on several material points of financial policy between the Secretary of State for India and Mr. S. Laing, the Finance Minister who had been sent from England to Calcutta as successor to the late Mr. James Wilson. The disapprobation expressed of some of Mr. Laing's financial statements by Sir Charles Wood in his despatches had led to the resignation of his office by the former gentleman, but his views had been received with much approbation in Calcutta, and had met with support from some influential persons home, who considered that he had been rather summarily treated by his chief, and that his confessedly valuable services had not been properly appreciated. The fact that Mr. Laing had no seat in the House of Commons naturally precluded Sir Charles Wood from the same freedom of comment on his proceedings which he would probably have used had his opponent been present, but in the statement which the Secretary of State was called upon to make, it was impossible to avoid some reference to the existing controversy between them. The right hon. Baronet commenced his statement by some remarks upon the at topics of difference between himself and Mr. Laing, expressing his regret that there should be any personal ingredient in these differences, and his anxiety to avoid any observations that might be offensive to him. He complained of the extreme inaccuracy of the accounts transmitted from India, which, he said, had been a source of the greatest annoyance to him, and which deprived the public of the means of knowing what they had a right to knowthe real state of the Indian finances. He then proceeded to show, in details of figures, the alleged errors in the accounts furnished from India for the years 1860-61, 1861-62, and the estimate for 1862-63, accompanied by explanations of the sources of the errors. The result, in 1862-63, was that Mr. Laing had over-estimated his surplus by about 1,000,000l., and, having remitted taxes to the amount of 725,000l., he had really a deficit of revenue in that year. Mr. Laing, he observed, had assumed that the cash balances in the Indian treasuries having increased, he must have a considerable surplus revenue. Sir Charles argued that this was an untenable assumption, and that Mr. Laing's theory was erroneous. He then discussed the question as to the loss by exchange of the rupee into sterling money in the railway accounts, being 2d. in the rupee, which loss had been omitted in the accounts sent from India, insisting upon the fallacy of the reasons assigned by the Indian Government for the omission. He disputed Mr. Laing's views upon the subject of the repayment of advances, another disturbing element in the accounts, professing great astonishment at the arguments he had employed to support and justify these views; and he reiterated his own opinions upon the subject. Having thus cleared the ground, he proceeded to state what the finances of India really had been in the last three years: Charge. Years. Revenue. 1860-61 42,903,000l. 46,924,000l. 1861-62 42,911,000l. 43,506,000. 1862-63 42,971,000l. 43,255,000l. The result showed, he observed, a deficit of revenue in each year, which he expected would disappear at the end of the present year, as we were approaching, he thought, a sound system of Indian finance. He stated the progress made in public works in India; and, with respect to cotton, he had been informed, he said, by Sir George Clerk that the growth of that plant had considerably increased. He was decidedly of opinion that the Government ought not to interfere in this matter; that an adequate demand would produce an adequate supply; but all assistance needed by cotton merchants in conducting their own transactions, he added, should be afforded. He adverted to the changes that had been made in the Indian Councils and the Governmental departments, and in the law tribunals in India; to the state of the Civil Service; and to the reductions in the army. He dwelt upon the good effects which had resulted from the policy now pursued towards the native Princes of the country, and from the measures taken to create an intermediate class connected with the land between the chiefs and the peasantry. In addition to these measures, the merit of which was due to Lord Canning, the Government had determined, as a proper complement, to carry out as soon as practicable throughout British India a permanent settlement of land tenures. Our Indian empire, he remarked, had suffered a shock which had left its lesson. Our power had been sustained by military strength; but a source of still greater strength would be found in the attachment of the people of India. In conclusion, Sir Charles paid a warm tribute to the character and services of Lord Canning. Mr. H. Seymour thought that Mr. Laing's mistakes were excusable, the Government of India having concurred in his views, and Sir C. Wood not having given him timely notice of the errors. As to some of the questions, Mr. Laing, he thought, whether right or wrong, was not open to animadversion. He urged the necessity of a larger expenditure upon roads in India, and that more discretion should be left to the local Government. He complained of the present Home Administration and of the great expense of the department. Mr. Smollett admitted that there had been a great reduction of expenditure in India and a material advance in the prosperity of the country; but he complained that the management of the Indian finances, a clear and simple matter, was very faulty: that the deficiencies were caused by extravagance; that there was રી mystification about railway transactions, and he protested against the mixing up of the public money of the Government with the private money of adventurers. Besides railways, the Government patronized other companies, which were floated by means of the mischievous system of guarantees, and hence the derangement of the Indian finances, over which the House did not exercise a proper control. Mr. Gregson observed that, if there had been no Government guarantee, there would, in his opinion, have been no railways in India. He made a few remarks upon the points in dispute between Sir C. Wood and Mr. Laing. Mr. Crawford accused Mr. Smollett of having spoken of Indian railway companies without a correct knowledge of the facts. Upon the financial questions, particularly with reference to the loss by exchange of the rupee, he explained the effect of the arrangement between the Government and the railway companies, and his own view of the subject, which, to a certain extent, coincided with that of Sir C. Wood. As to the cotton question, he argued that it would be a violation of the first principles of political economy for the Government to interfere. It was a matter of satisfaction to observe, he said, the great extension of the products of India. He expressed his gratification at the statement of Sir C. Wood. After some further observations upon the points in dispute between Sir C. Wood and Mr. Laing, and a reply from the former, the Resolutions were agreed to. A concession of great value in the eyes of the friends of freedom, was made this year by the Go |