§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to call attention to a Consular Notification dated Shanghai, February 8, 1861; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What circumstances have occasioned this Notification in which Mr. Consul Meadows 833 announced his intended withdrawal from the principal post of his consular duties? No doubt Mr. Meadows found himself in a false position, the treaty having imposed upon him duties which were subverted, and undermined by the Tartar authorities. Complaints by Chinese merchants of evasions of the treaty were made to him which he could not redress. In the North China Herald there was an advertisement that the office of Inspector of Customs would be closed for two days, upon the occasion of the Chinese new year signed by an Englishman. It appeared, in fact, that we had established Inspectors of Customs at each of the treaty ports who, as servants of the Tartar authorities, collected the duties and handed them over to the Tartar Government to be employed against the national party. Even, during the late war, a large amount of duties was collected at Shanghai, and handed over to the Tartar Government, who employed it in fighting us. Great complaints were made to the British Consul at Shanghai of the oppressions practised by the Tartar authorities upon Chinese merchants in levying what were called "squeezes;" two traders were said to have been "squeezed" out of 40,000 taels each or nearly £13,000, and the Consul was unable to do anything to redress them. The Coolie slave trade was carried on at all the treaty ports with all the atrocities that marked the African slave trade, and a report from Swatow is in the following terms—
The deportation from this port of Chinese Coolies calls for remark. It is the slave trade in its worst form. Five hundred Coolies have been recently despatched to Singapore for sale. The whole subject of this Coolie trade demands investigation. It appears that it has become an adjunct of the gambling table, and that the miserable gamester will often stake his body for the sum it will fetch at the emigration depot. The Friend of China affirms that the same evil is at work in Canton.At Swatow, also, alarming riots had taken place on the proclamation of the treaties with foreigners; the proclamations had been torn down by the populace, and the Yamun or Palace of Taotoe was burnt, and the lives of foreigners were threatened, yet our consuls could do nothing, and we were looked upon as accessories to these slave captures. These disorders were extending throughout China. A rebellion, independent of the Taepings of whom the noble Lord had lately done him the honour to say that he (Colonel Sykes) was the only friend in that House had sprung up, and 834 it was said that Prince Sang-ko-lin-sin had been beaten by the insurgents. He (Colonel Sykes) was the friend of the Taepings on the same principle that the noble Lord was the friend of the Italians,—sympathy in their struggles for national independence. Another account was, that the Tartar troops had mutinied at Pekin for want of pay. The Tartar Government was thoroughly rotten, and if not supported by foreign bayonets could not stand for a day against the rebels. With these prospects of anarchy he was afraid the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of benefit to the revenue from the trade with China would not be fulfilled unless some other policy were adopted, a continuance in which would impose upon us the necessity of maintaining half a dozen garrisons of troops on the Coast of China, and half a dozen fleets in the internal waters. It was right the House should know that we had forty-nine steamers and ten sailing vessels in the waters of China. How long was this source of expenditure to last? He would also beg to ask the noble Lord on what grounds the Consul General in Japan has abandoned his position at the capital? He understood that when he left he was guarded by 160 Japanese soldiers and two field pieces, so that there was no reason to be apprehensive for his personal safety.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, he concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, and considered the question one of great importance. He would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether any inquiry had been made with regard to the papers for which he had lately moved—the correspondence between Mr. Meadows, Sir John Bowring, and the Earl of Elgin, regarding the Custom-house system of China?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLBefore I advert to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) I wish to correct an error I made on a previous occasion as to the sums paid under the Chinese indemnity. I had mistaken two sums, the one for the other—the sum which had been received, and the sum we are entitled to receive. I stated that the former was £650,000, but I find it was £212,000, and that the sum we are entitled to receive is £650,000 or 2,000,000 taels. With regard to the other questions put to me by my gallant Friend, I find, on reference to the papers in the office respecting what 835 passed at Shanghai, that as early as 1859, Mr. Consul Meadows wrote to say that the work he had to discharge was more than he could bear, and asked for assistance. In April of that year, accordingly, further assistance was despatched to him; but before that assistance could arrive a further despatch was received from him, dated the 8th of February, and stating that his health was entirely unequal to the performance of his duties, and that he proposed, therefore, to confine himself to the routine duties of his office and to that portion of the political business which as consul he was required to superintend. In a subsequent despatch addressed to me Mr. Consul Meadows stated that after having been for twelve months engaged in the performance of very arduous duties in that trying climate he felt that his health was unequal to the task, and that he felt compelled to resign. We felt much regret that he should have come to this decision, because he has been a most deserving officer, and—what I am sure the gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) will appreciate—he agrees with the gallant Officer in his opinions about the Taepings. With regard to another statement which my hon. and gallant Friend has made, it refers to an arrangement which was made some time ago, and which may be considered as still on its trial. The arrangement is this, that the Chinese custom-houses should be superintended by officers appointed by the Chinese Government, but themselves Europeans, and recommended by European consuls. The object of that arrangement was to put an end to that partiality and openness to bribery that was supposed to characterise the Chinese Custom House officials, and to establish a system of neutrality as well as to secure a proper collection of the duties. Whether that arrangement will answer the purpose for which it was intended I am not now in a condition to state; but, on the other hand, I am not disposed to put an end to it at present. My hon. and gallant Friend has described the anarchy that prevails in different places in China. There is nothing in that to surprise me, because for many years past, ever since the commencement of the Taeping rebellion, the central Government has been in a very weak state, and possesses little or no authority. That may be; but that fact is not to prevent the British Government from redressing any wrongs which our fellow-countrymen may receive, or in- 836 duce us to refrain from giving protection to the persons and property of British subjects in case of injury. I do not understand the purport of my hon. Friend's observations, unless he meant us either not to interfere when British subjects were outraged, or that we should acknowledge the rebel general as the Emperor of China. For our own part, what we have done is to acknowledge the existing authorities of the Empire; and with regard to the contest that is carried on by the Taepings we remain neutral. It is true we defended Shanghai on one occasion, but our reason for doing so was that there was danger of British subjects and British property being injured in the attack the Taeping threatened. As to maintaining the present Emperor against the Taepings, we have no such intention; and even with regard to Shanghai, if it should be necessary again to employ a British force in its defence we do not think it ought to be at the expense of this nation, because Shanghai is not a place which we have a right to occupy with troops under treaty. My hon. Friend next asks what is the use of having a consul general at Japan, if he is to abandon his position. The reason of his doing so is detailed in a despatch he has addressed to the Foreign Minister at Japan, and which I shall have no objection to lay upon the table of the House. The circumstances were that for a considerable time past a system of intimidation has been pursued in Japan against all the Foreign Ministers. That system of intimidation, though not openly countenanced by the Japanese Government, was allowed by it to be pursued without giving them any protection against it. A servant of the British Minister was murdered, and no redress was obtained. Some time afterwards the Secretary of the American Consul was murdered. When this occurred the Foreign Ministers expressed their indignation; but no redress was given, and nothing was done. When the Foreign Ministers proposed to attend the funeral of the person thus murdered, and carry the American Secretary to his grave, the Japanese officials said they would probably all be massacred, and that they could give them no protection against any attack, by which their lives might be endangered. Notwithstanding this covert threat, the several Ministers attended the funeral, and no attack was made on them. But they held a meeting to consider what course to pursue, and decided, that if this intimida- 837 tion, so culpably permitted by the Japanese Government, were allowed to go on they would leave Jeddo; they stated to the Government that, for the future, they expected sufficient protection for persons and property, not only for themselves but for all merchants and strangers. This resolution was taken by the English, French, Russian, and Dutch Ministers. But the American Consul, whose Secretary had been murdered, did not agree with this resolution, and proposed to remain in Jeddo. It certainly appears the Ministers then received a general assurance of a wish to protect them; and, in fact, their houses have been guarded by Japanese troops. I ought to explain that the Ministers have not broken off connection with the Japanese Government; there is no interruption of diplomatic communications; they have only retired to a place where men of war can protect them, for armed vessels cannot approach Jeddo till their relations with the Japanese Government become more satisfactory. I hope to receive further accounts in a short time, and then I shall have no objection to lay all the papers on the table of the House. Mr. Alcock, our consul there, is a most deserving officer, and his conduct, both in China and throughout these trying affairs, has been such that I felt I might place the greatest reliance on his knowledge of the country, and of the tone which was most likely to produce an effect on the Japanese Government.
There is a question at the end of the paper, referring to the injury that a British subject, the owner of the cargo of a vessel, the Mio Zeo, is alleged to have suffered from the Spanish authorities of Port Mahon, in the Island of Minorca. I find that this is altogether a private case, the dispute as to the cargo was tried before the ordinary tribunal, and has now been carried to a superior court, and it is a question that the Spanish tribunal alone can decide.
As to what the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has said respecting the religious persecutions in Spain, I must explain again that in what I said before as to the reason for the imprisonment of these men I stated only the allegations of the Spanish Minister, and I beg that it may not be supposed if I state from the despatch of our own Minister what was related to him by the Spanish Minister that I, therefore, identify myself with all the statements of the Spanish Minister. But further, the Spanish Minister himself never 838 said that those two men, Alhama and Matomoros, were connected with secret political societies; far from it. He stated they were condemned by the laws of Spain to a certain period of imprisonment for non-compliance with the rites of Roman Catholic worship, and for holding Protestant opinions, and having Protestant books in their houses; but he did not charge them at all with being members of secret societies. What he said was this—
I shall be glad to give British subjects every possible kind of indulgence that is compatible with law and with my official authority; and I should be Tory glad to appeal to the Crown for a pardon for those men who are now suffering on account of their religious opinions. But since their imprisonment it has been discovered that there are secret societies in Spain with ramifications through all parts of the country, and inculcating socialist and republican opinions; and therefore this is not a moment in which I can advise that the clemency of the Crown should be extended to those individuals.Now that statement may be good or bad. I am only responsible for it so far as that I am repeating the allegations of the Spanish Minister. With regard to this subject generally, I will add, that any one holding the office I have the honour to fill, and thus representing the British nation, must be averse to religious intolerance, and in favour of religious liberty. But it does not follow that we are to inculcate our views of religious liberty on the Governments of foreign nations. We must wait for proper opportunities. If this House will allow me I will state an incident which happened last year and the progress that has been made in the establishment of religious liberty, not in consequence of anything I have done, but of the events that have occurred. There were two rival Governments in Mexico—the church and the constitutional Governments. Prance and Spain and the British Government wished to mediate between them. But I said we cannot agree to any settlement. I cannot recommend the British nation to take part in any arrangement, unless the principle of religious liberty be established in Mexico. The reason of this was, that the constitutional party had previously declared that that was their inviolable principle, and I thought that if the British Government were to exercise any influence at all we could not use it to induce the constitutionlists to depart from that which we believe to be the just principle. As it happens, the constitutionalists have gained the victory, and the principle of religious 839 liberty is now firmly established in Mexico. So, in every instance, where British influence can be used I endeavour to oppose the principle of religious intolerance, and urge the right of leaving every man free to exercise his own religious opinions. With regard to the Spanish Government, I may say that they are perfectly well acquainted with what the hon. Baronet wishes to see carried out. The Spanish Government know that the religious intolerance they sanction is opposed to the feelings, principles, and opinions of the present times, as well as to the practice of the other nations of Europe. Some time ago I stated my views to a deputation that waited upon me on the subject. What I stated was reported in Spain, and the Spanish Government know what I said. But if we were to make an overt official representation to the Spanish Government on the subject they would naturally say, "We may be right or wrong, but we have a right as an independent Government to maintain our own laws and the principles of our constitution." I think hon. Gentlemen will see this. A century ago our laws forbade a Roman Catholic priest to perform mass—in other words the Roman Catholics were not permitted to practice the worship of their religion, though that law was administered with a great degree of mildness and forbearance. But if the Spanish Government had then said to England—"You have an intolerant law, and you must alter it," I think that Lord Chatham, who was Secretary of State at the time, would have listened with some indignation to these representations on the part of the Spanish Government. Therefore, though the opinions that prevail in Spain and the articles of her constitution may be repugnant to my feelings, and contrary to my opinions, I must use not only a certain degree of discretion but shew a certain degree of respect to the views of the independent Government of Spain in taking any official action on the subject. But I beg the House to believe that if I do not interfere actively it is not because I do not wish to see religious liberty prevail, not in Spain only, but all over the world. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) I have not been able to find the papers he asked for.