SUPPLY.—THE CHINA WAR.—REPORT. (Hansard, 16 July 1860)

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
It was my intention to have availed myself of this opportunity to notice certain personal references to myself and my colleagues which were made on a former evening by the noble Lord the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs after I had accidentally left the House. I extremely regret that now, at the usual hour for public business (half-past four o'clock), neither of those noble Lords are in their places, and I am therefore unable to proceed with the defence of myself and my colleagues from the imputations which were most undeservedly thrown upon us by both of them. I beg leave to give notice that as the somewhat unusual absence of those noble Lords prevents my making the remarks which I intended to have addressed to the House, 1948 I shall upon a future day call their attention and that of the House to this subject.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
The observations made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were made in answer to the noble the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in his presence, and in the presence of other Gentlemen who had been colleagues of the right hon. Baronet. So far as they contained any allusion to the right hon. Baronet, formerly First Lord of the Admiralty, they were only a repetition in a few sentences of what the noble Lord had said in answer to the right hon. Baronet, and in his presence, a few nights before.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
As I do not think that the honour of England depends upon the presence or absence of either of the noble Lords I am going to make a few observations upon this Vote. The Vote is to provide for the expenses of the last, and it is connected with the present war in China. Now, I do not want either war to go past without a distinct protest on the part of one Member at least of this House, against its justice. I believe that the House is with me, and I believe that the people of England are with me upon this occasion. They have been misled, but they are not now misled, and if they once understood the origin of this war—for what we carry it on we cannot learn from that (the Treasury) Bench—I think they would be of opinion, as they are of opinion, that this war is utterly indefensible on the ground either of the interest or the honour of England. How did this war begin? It began with an attempt on the part of this country to promote the smuggling of opium. Here comes a very distinct inquiry as to the character of the Chinese, and that of the English people. Now, it is a very curious fact that the Chinese people have no desire to have any communication with us. We have thrust ourselves upon them. The restless spirit of English adventure has led us to China, and we have, thereupon, endeavoured to force our manufactures and our commerce upon a people who entirely repudiate all dealing with us. Now, I want the people of England to recognize with regard to the Chinese the feelings which they entertain with regard to themselves. What would they think if the Chinese said, "We will go to Liverpool and introduce into that port something the entry of which is forbidden?" Suppose that we had arrived at such a point of civilization that we wished not to see our 1949 people drunk, and that we desired to have no importation of arrack. Arrack is made by the Chinese, and opium by the English. Suppose that the people of England desired that no arrack should be imported into Liverpool, but that the Chinese were powerful enough to bring their ships to that port and to introduce arrack in spite of us, what would the people of England say? They would say that these were a barbarous people endeavouring to force upon us, a Christian people, the means of intoxicating our population and rendering them miserable. That is what the Chinese said, and when they said it we turned round upon them and said, "You are a barbarous people." We imported opium, they seized, confiscated, and destroyed that opium, and we, employing the force which what we call civilization gives us, compelled them to pay for it and to enter into a treaty of peace with us. This, Sir, was all before the occurrence of that memorable circumstance at Canton. Now, I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary for War, and the noble Lord the Member for London, all expended violent eloquence in describing the horrible abominations of the conduct of the English. Then it was that we bombarded Canton. The right hon. Gentleman asked for what? He never got an answer to that inquiry; I never got an answer to that inquiry. I inquired then, as I inquired the other night, for what was that Chinese war intended,—what did we expect to get by it? The other night I asked the right hon. Gentleman, "If the bombardment of Canton so excited your indignation, how can you support the Administration in asking for these four millions of money to carry on this war?" The right hon. Gentleman said that circumstances had altered. Now, I want to know how they have altered? Let us understand the case. We bombarded Canton and compelled the Chinese to enter into a treaty. The force of cannon cannot be resisted, and they yielded, and said certain things in their treaty. Among others, an Ambassador was to go to Pekin. The noble Lord at the head of the Administration said that when our Ambassador arrived at the mouth of the Peiho treachery was practised towards us. Now, there was no treachery. Stakes were driven across the mouth of the river, and we were told that those stakes were not to be drawn up. We attempted to draw them up; guns were in 1950 consequence of that attempt fired upon us from the shore, and we were beaten. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman wherein the circumstances have altered. According to the violent eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the origin of that war was unjust. We by superior force compelled the Chinese to make a treaty. Does that alter the character of the origin of the war, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, was unjust? The Chinese entered into a treaty which stipulated that an English Ambassador should reside in Pekin. We determined to go by one way; the people of China said we should go by another. We attempted to carry our determination into effect, but we failed to do so; and now we are sending out thousands of men and spending millions of money in order to enforce a treaty, the origin of which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was unjust. I want to know what has taken place since to render that just which was originally unjust, and to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in passing from one bench to another, to support that in office which he so eloquently denounced in Opposition. It appears to me that the interests of the people of England, on this question of war with China, are entirely neglected. We are supposed to be at the head of civilization, and to represent justice, mercy, and Christianity. I believe all three are overlooked on the present occasion. Justice, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, was violated by our proceedings in China. We bombarded an innocent city, and we, having superior power at our command, compelled the Chinese Government to enter into a treaty which it desired not to enter into. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office said on a former occasion we should have no end of the Chinese war. His vaticination has been verified. We shall have no end to the war or to the expense connected with it. England Weeds at every pore—in money and in honour—and the people of England are entirely neglected by the Government: we are degraded by the Ministry which leads us; everything that can possibly militate against humanity and morality is supported by the occupants of the Treasury bench; and we are now setting an example to the world of western civilization entirely opposed to the principles of justice, teaching an Eastern people to believe that Western civilization is Western cruelty and murder. I charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1951 and his two noble Colleagues—I charge the right hon. Secretary for war—with having on this question deserted their duty. They began right, but they have changed; and the change which has taken place in them is the result, I fear, of a change in their situation. That which was wrong when they were on the Opposition benches is right now they are on the Treasury benches. It is clear that upon this question honour, justice, and truth are neglected. Ministers defend that which in Opposition they denounced. They are the supporters of murder, of dishonour, of dishonesty, of lying, of everything which when in Opposition they condemned.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I am far from deprecating further discussion on this great question, either by the hon. and learned Gentleman or by any other Member of this House. I admit it is a question which can hardly be too much discussed, and with respect to which it is desirable that the people of England should possess the fullest information. I am glad when I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the subject, because, however I may deny the justice of his attacks and incriminations, however I may think his arguments cannot be maintained, yet I cannot help respecting the principles upon which he treats it, and his disposition to hold that in our dealings with Eastern and feeble nations we should be as regardful of the principles of truth and fair play as if we were dealing with the most powerful and formidable nations of Europe. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman at present, because I think that as respects the merits of the quarrel in which we are most unhappily engaged with China, it is not possible to appreciate them without a very exact and careful consideration of dates and documents, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has, indeed, alluded, but in terms so general that I think his conclusions are not entitled to the reliance which might otherwise be placed in them. To one principle, however, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has recorded, I must, on the other hand, enter my protest. He states that the war which led to the Treaty of Tientsin was in its origin tainted on our part with injustice, and that the treaty itself was yielded by the Chinese to superior force. Upon those points, I am still disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he infers, if I understand 1952 him aright, from the fact that our case was not sound in the origin of the war, that we are neither bound nor entitled to enforce the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and that the Chinese on their part are not bound to observe it. In that proposition I cannot concur. I believe the Treaty of Tien-tsin stands a good and valid international compact. I do not mean to say that if it were a question of pressing to extremes all the terms of that treaty it would not be required by prudence, and even by justice and humanity, to use mildness in the enforcement of those terms, out of a liberal regard to the relative positions of the parties. But I do say that that is not the question upon which we have been at issue with China. The question has been, not whether the treaty has been mercilessly enforced on our part, but whether a treaty which has received in a public declaration the approbation in all its parts of the Emperor of China, should or should not be ratified in the capital of the Chinese empire. That is the question at issue, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the ratification of the Treaty of Tien-tsin is the primary object for which the Government have thought it to be their duty to resort to force. As respects the question how far notice was given to us that our Ambassador was not to proceed to Pekin by way of the Peiho—how far we were entitled to use the main road of the empire—how far we were deceived with regard to the fortifications at the mouth of the river, I shall say nothing now, because, as I have stated, I think in order to be fairly judged they must be judged by careful and exact reference to documents, requiring an amount of time which certainly I am not prepared to give at the present moment, and to which the House would not be prepared to listen when it has met for the consideration of other, and, at the same time, very important business. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, in further reply to the question about the issue of the new coinage, that he had just received an official report from the Master of the Mint, informing him that the Mint was prepared to proceed with the striking of the coin almost immediately, but that some time must necessarily elapse after the striking of the coin had begun before the issue could be commenced. About two months would be occupied in accumulating a sufficient number of the new coin to enable the Mint to supply the public demand.