Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

employment of British officers in the service of the Emperor of China. He urged the inevitable consequences of such an interference in the political, financial, and military affairs of one country by another, which had been strongly condemned by persons best acquainted with China, and the fruits of which might, he said, be discerned in what had happened in India. After dwelling upon the effect which the new policy adopted in China would have upon our relations with other powers, and especially the encouragement and justification it would offer to Russia and France to intermeddle in the affairs of the Chinese empire, he impressed upon the House that it was a policy which would seriously impair the British character in the opinion of the people of China, and prejudice the interests of British commerce.

The policy of the Government was defended against these imputations by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Layard. They denied that any case had been made out against the Ministry for the course they had pursued. The main question was, they said, had their policy been attended with good results? had it been founded in good faith, and was it likely to be of advantage to the country? A great part of the speech of Lord Naas appeared to imply approbation of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. He had said they were teaching the Chinese the art of Government, how to regulate their finances, increase their revenue, and improve the administration of their territory. Her Majesty's Government admitted these charges, and claimed merit for what they were doing. The policy they had pursued was one which they had heard commended in that House,-that of treating China as a civilized nation. We had now a Minister at Pekin, and carried on direct communications with the Central Government. Our policy had two objects,-one to restore public tranquillity in China, the other to secure the observance of treaties, by convincing the Chinese that it was as much for their interest as for ours. It was part of our policy to support the liberal party in China, at the head of which was Prince Kung. In carrying out our policy, Mr. Bruce, our Minister, had encountered great difficulties. One of the objections urged by Prince Kung to the adoption of measures he recommended was, the internal disorders in China. "Help us," he said, "to put down the rebellion, and to manage our finances, and we shall be able to do what you require." Adverting to the character of the Taepings, it was notorious that they were unable to found a government, and, according to the testimony of witnesses of all classes, they were loose bands of mere plunderers. Great allowance should be made for the difficult position in which our officials in China were placed in relation to the rebels, and the speakers defended the course taken by them, and the placing the Customs under the direction of Mr. Lay. They accounted for the outcry raised in China against the introduction of the foreign element into the management of the Customs, by the check it imposed upon frauds and smuggling, though it was a great boon to

the British trader. Finally, they contended that the authorizing of British officers to organize Chinese troops, and to enter the service of the Emperor, was no violation of neutrality, and that the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government was just and humane, and one that, so far from causing war, would prevent it. The conclusion to be drawn from letters of recent date was, that the Taeping rebellion was gradually dying out, and, looking at what was taking place, sanguine hopes might be entertained of the progress and improvement of China.

No division was taken upon Lord Naas's motion.

The long-pending and embarrassing dispute respecting SchleswigHolstein was another of those foreign questions which came under Parliamentary discussion this Session. The subject was mooted by Lord Ellenborough, who inquired of the Government whether they intended to produce any further correspondence relating to Schleswig, and especially whether they would communicate any representations that might have been made to Denmark by the Governments of Austria and Russia respecting the proclamation of the King of Denmark, of March, 1863. The question, he urged, in its present state, threatened seriously the peace of Europe, as soon as the condition of Poland would permit the German Powers to direct their attention to it. The negotiations of the last two years had only increased the irritation on both sides, and the despatch of Lord Russell, published last autumn, had reversed the policy of this country, and threatened the integrity of Denmark. The Danes had made every concession that Germany was entitled to ask for, and had acceded to the terms proposed by Lord Russell in 1861. Denmark, as a free and constitutional country, was eminently entitled to our sympathies, and in his opinion the recent proclamation in regard to Holstein had conceded all that the German Diet were entitled to demand. In respect to Schleswig, it had been a part of Denmark for 400 years, and Germany had not the slightest claim over it. Denmark was therefore justified in making the stand she had done in that proclamation. He proceeded to expose the ambitious and aggressive intentions of Germany, which were prompted by the design of making Germany a naval power. The diplomatic engagements imposed on Denmark, he contended, were impracticable, and should be altered by the great Powers, if Denmark was to again assume her rightful position in Europe. He concluded by making a spirited appeal on behalf of Denmark, and expressed a hope that our Government, in conjunction with that of France, would insist upon the designs of Germany being abandoned, and on the settlement of the question by means of a Congress.

Earl RUSSELL considered the doctrines laid down by Lord Ellenborough most extraordinary. Both Germany and Denmark, from ancient prejudices, had committed mistakes in making demands they were not entitled to make, and in not performing promises which had been solemnly given, as in the case of Den

mark, which had not fulfilled the promises it had made in 1851. It was obvious, however, that a compromise ought to be effected, and he had made various proposals with that object. He still thought that his proposal of 1862 would settle the question, for although it did not satisfy the German Diet, Prussia and Austria were willing to receive it. That proposal would have preserved the independence of Denmark, and he thought Denmark had unwisely refused her assent, considering the non-fulfilment of the engagements of 1851 on her part. Germany insisted on fulfilment of these engagements, and the efforts of France and England were directed to obtain such a modification of them as would suit both parties. To adopt, however, the views of Lord Ellenborough, and override a solemn compact as to the duties of the Federal Diet, would be a most arbitrary act of international power. The treaty of 1851 ought to be adhered to by both parties, as it afforded the only ground for a fair settlement, and was a position which the English Government should maintain.

The Earl of DERBY said that the proposals of Lord Russell in 1861 might have been accepted without disadvantage by either party. In respect to Holstein, Denmark had admitted the rights of Germany; but he doubted the wisdom of allowing Austria and Prussia, in regard to Schleswig, to override all law and justice, especially as they had recently rejected every attempt at an arrangement. The German Powers ought to give as well as take, and in return for the concession towards Holstein they should respect Schleswig, unless their object was to weaken Denmark, and destroy its independence. Our true policy was to protect Denmark, as a free and constitutional kingdom, from aggression; and he much regretted that Lord Russell had, by reversal of that policy, greatly increased the difficulties of the situation.

Throughout the whole of this Session, as was naturally to be expected, the momentous events of the civil war in America, with the various complications which it induced, gave repeated occasion to comment, inquiry, or formal discussion, in both Houses of Parliament. The relations of our Government to that of the Northern States of the Union were at times of the most delicate and critical kind. Dubious questions of international law, affecting our commercial and maritime interests, were continually arising. The language held by some American politicians and a portion of their newspaper press towards this country, aroused from time to time feelings of profound irritation in the public mind. Our avowed policy of non-interference, though generally approved by the nation, was in some quarters endured with impatience or openly assailed. The attitude was one which, however commendable in the abstract, yet, as it procured us little gratitude or acknowledgment from the combatants, and entailed severe sacrifices on the part of our community, it required much effort and forbearance on the part of our Government to maintain. At times, indeed, it appeared questionable whether all our endeavours to keep aloof

from this fratricidal quarrel would not be ineffectual, and apprehensions were felt that this country would be at last compelled, however unwillingly, to enter into the contest. This result was for the time happily averted, and England adhered firmly throughout the second year of the war to her pacific counsels and her impartial neutrality, although it was no secret that, had she been willing to join with France in recognizing the Government of the Southern States, she would have found the Emperor Napoleon only too willing to concur in that measure. A reference to the discussions which took place in Parliament from time to time during the various phases of the struggle will best illustrate at the same time the tone of the public mind in England, and the grounds and conditions of the policy pursued towards the rival belligerent powers by Lord Palmerston's Government.

One of the first occasions subsequently to the debate on the Address on which our relations to the contending parties in America were formally discussed, was upon a motion brought forward in the House of Lords by Lord Campbell, having for its direct object to affirm the expediency of acknowledging, in concert with other neutral powers, the Southern Confederacy as an independent State. The debate was chiefly important for the distinct avowal of the grounds and motives of the non-interference policy which it elicited from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The principal argument urged by Lord Campbell for recognizing the South was, that it would take away the last hope of the North of subjugating the South, and would materially influence the Federal Government in coming to an arrangement with their opponents, if those opponents were once looked on as an independent Power by foreign nations. As precedents for this view he quoted the recognition of the United States by France, of the South American Republics by England, and of Portugal in 1641 by various European Powers; and urged that the neutral Powers by their silence implied a belief in the possible power of the North to subdue the Southern States, and put both parties thereby in a false position. The opinions of this country, and of France and Holland, had been sufficiently manifested by the recent loan raised for the Confederates, while military men had also expressed their conviction that the conquest of the South was impossible. He referred to a variety of considerations, both moral and material, which ought to influence Her Majesty's Government in recognizing the Southern Confederacy, and concluded by observing that, if recognition were withheld, the war would never be brought to an end.

Earl RUSSELL said, "My lords, I suppose there is no member of either House of Parliament who does not wish for a termination of the civil war in America. It disturbs commerce, it interferes with the peace of the world, and it afflicts America herself; and if any thing could be usefully, and, I must add, justly done to bring that war to a termination, I repeat there is no member of either House of Parliament, there is no person in the country, who

would not gladly see such a consummation. But, after having listened to my noble friend, I must confess I remain in the same persuasion as before at the present moment - and I speak only of the present moment-that there is nothing this country could do usefully and wisely which would tend to the termination of the hostilities on the other side of the Atlantic. My noble friend has somewhat mixed different topics, and he has alluded to three different modes of intervention in the affairs of other countries. One, which is the minimum of interference, that of advice, good offices, and mediation; another, the mode proposed by my noble friend, that of recognition; and the third, one which we have sometimes resorted to, and which other nations have more frequently had recourse to-that of forcible intervention. My noble friend says, and says truly, that, since I had the honour of addressing the House last summer, there has been some divergence between the views of the Government of this country and that of the Emperor of the French. The Government of the Emperor of the French conceived that it might tend to the termination of the war if three Powers-France, Great Britain, and Russia-were to propose a suspension of arms with a view to negotiation between the two belligerents. Her Majesty's Government, after carefully examining that proposition, came to the conclusion that its adoption by us would not be likely to lead to its acceptance by the Government of the United States of America; while, by causing irritation, it would not increase, but diminish, the chances of our seeing a termination of the contest. The French Government has proceeded in accordance with its views, and has actually proposed to the Government of the United States to negotiate with the Southern States. That proposition has not been adopted; and I think your lordships will judge from what has happened with reference to the proposals of France, and with reference to suggestions thrown out in other countries, that any interference on the part of this country would only have tended to aggravate the evils of the present lamentable state of affairs in America. It does not appear at the present moment that this contest would be likely to be terminated by an offer of our good offices. I say at the present moment, because it is impossible to say that, in the course of events, a time may not come when both the contending parties would be desirous of the good offices or wise counsels of friendly Powers. I do not see any probability of that at this moment, but I wish to guard myself against being supposed to speak positively of the future."

Earl Russell then proceeded to examine the precedents adduced as bearing upon the present case by Lord Campbell, and, argued that none of them was really applicable to the juncture. The recognition of the United States by France was nothing else but a forcible intervention. In the case of the South American Republics, he showed that the soil of those Republics was free from hostile troops at the period of their recognition, which was not yet.

« AnteriorContinuar »