Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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 protec tion 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 police 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 in 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 objectional 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 at 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

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 1,000,0007., 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 urged 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

[blocks in formation]

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 reductious 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

of the Government with the private money of adventurers. Besides railways the Government

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.

the land between the chiefs and the peasantry. In addition to these measures, the merit of which was due to Lord Can- patronizedothercompanies, which ning, 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 a mystification about railway transactions, and he protested against the mixing up of the public money

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

vernment of the United States, On the 20th of May, Earl Russell laid on the table of the House of Lords a copy of the treaty just concluded between the States and this country for the suppression of the Slave Trade. He said the present Government of the United States had shown great anxiety for the extinction of the slave trade, and the present treaty, which gave extensive rights of search to the cruisers of both nations, would, he hoped, together with other measures adopted by that Government, go far towards the attainment of that object.

Lord Brougham, while congratulating Government upon the convention concluded with the United States. asked if some arrangements could not be made by which the right of search, now conceded within thirty leagues of the coasts of Africa and Cuba, might be further extended to within thirty leagues of the island of Port Rico?

Earl Granville replied that, as the United States Government were thoroughly in earnest on the subject, he had every reason to believe they would listen favourable to any suggestion such as that made by Lord Brougham.

« AnteriorContinuar »