QUESTION. (Hansard, 23 March 1863)

§ COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement of General Burgevine respecting the causes of the late mutiny of the Chinese drilled troops, published in The Friend, of China of the 17th of January, 1863, has been received at the Foreign Office, together with the protest of all his Officers, forty-five in number, against the attempt of the Chinese authorities to obtain his head by the offer of 50,000 taels, or for his secret apprehension, and threatening to resign if he is is murdered? His hon. Friend (Mr. Layard), in answering the Question he put the other evening, denied all knowledge on the subject and charged his correspondent with untruthfulness. The following day (Saturday) the China mail arrived, and brought a confirmation of the accounts he had received by the previous mail, and which led him to put his Questions. General Burgevine published his statement of the causes which led to the mutiny, and his own conduct, which had been arraigned. He stated, that on the 2nd of January, 1863, his troops in garrison at Sung-Kiong were absolutely without subsistence for the want of pay for a lengthened period. On the 2nd of January he went to Shanghai to receive the pay from the Government banker, Takee, who said it was ready to be paid; but, instead of receiving it, he met with the "grossest abuse." On returning to his troops he found they had affixed proclamations in the city, threatening to take the lives of the Mandarins and pillage the city. Fearing these consequences and for the safety of his European officers, General Burgevine pledged himself to obtain their pay in two days, and started a second time for Shanghai, taking now with him a few men of his body guard. He found the money ready packed, and he took it; but an altercation again ensued, and he unfortunately struck Takee, the banker. The Chinese local authorities immediately issued a proclamation charging him with treason and robbery, and deposing him from his command and offering a reward for his head. This official act excited the indignation of his European officers, and on the 10th of January they issued the following Protest, signed by forty-five Europeans, and which appeared in the Friend of China, and other 1756 Shanghai newspapers of the 17th of February, 1863:— We, the undersigned officers of the Ward Forces, commanded by General Burgevine, do hereby protest against the late actions of the Chinese authorities in his affairs. We are perfectly satisfied that he has always acted in a straightforward and open manner, and he has never been accused of the slightest offence against the military laws recognised by European Powers: we do not now, nor did we ever, consider ourselves liable to punishment by any others. In reference to the late occurrence in Shanghai, we know nothing more of that affair, than that it was absolutely necessary to obtain the money immediately, for the preservation of the force, and the safety of the European and Chinese officials. We also protest against the brutal attempt of the Chinese authorities to obtain the head of General Burgevine—50,000 taels being the sum offered for it, or for his secret apprehension. Should such a thing take place, we solemnly pledge ourselves, not only not to serve the Chinese authorities any longer, but would make such representation to the Imperial Government at Pekin as would lead to the just punishment of his murderers. [Signed by nine Majors, thirty Captains, three Lieutenants, three Gunners and Drivers, Clerks and Storekeepers.] Sung-Kiong, January 10th, 1863. These events must necessarily cause a very painful feeling in the minds of many families in England; for Her Majesty's Government, having permitted naval and military officers and other British subjects to take service with the Emperor of China, their lives were never safe from the caprices of the corrupt local officials, over whom the distant Pekin Government had really little control. He must beg his hon. Friend for the future to be more cautious in accusing his correspondents in China of want of truth, founded upon the ignorance of the Foreign Office of events known to every European in China.

§ MR. LAYARD

said, he was afraid he could not give his hon. and gallant Friend a more satisfactory answer than that he had given upon a former evening. It was only that morning that the Foreign Office had received a despatch from Mr. Consul Meadows, enclosing the article from The Friend of China to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred. He could not say whether the facts therein stated were true or not; but it appeared that General Burgevine, having had a slight difference with his banker, broke open his till and took away his money. Whether the General was justified in that proceeding he could not say. It was also announced that the local Chinese authorities had offered 50,000 taels for his head; but 1757 whether that offer was known to, or sanctioned by, the Chinese Government he had no information. The Foreign Office had received no official information but; when they did receive any, he would do his best to give a satisfactory reply to the hon. and gallant Member. He might add that all the correspondence relating to China was now upon the table of the House. The hon. and gallant Member had reprimanded the Foreign Office for their ignorance, and made a complaint that the truth of his informants had been disputed. The fact was, that the other evening he (Mr. Layard) had ventured to warn the hon. and gallant Member against relying too implicitly upon information he received from China; and he did so because he remembered that last year his hon. and gallant Friend made a statement in that House of some terrible atrocities committed at Shanghai, and read a letter stating that prisoners had been given up by English officers to the Chinese authorities, and were put to death in their presence. He was persuaded that there was no truth in the statement, because he believed it impossible that English officers could have been guilty of such conduct; but a circular was sent to every Consul in China enclosing the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and asking for information. In reply, the Foreign Office received distinct and positive assurances that not a single word of that statement was true, and he defied his hon. and gallant Friend to state the name of the writer of that letter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also told them that the Taepings had established a customhouse, and had published tariff regulations; but the Consuls in China all denied that any tariff regulations had been published by the Taepings. He thought, therefore, he was fully justified in cautioning the hon. and gallant Member against putting too implicit reliance on correspondence he might receive from China.