no hostility to our religion or trade, nor had they, he believed, ill-used any British subject. Our Government, nevertheless, thought it desirable to send a British force to Shanghai, to which the most stringent orders were addressed by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That noble Lord, in writing to Mr. Bruce on the 24th July 1861, said

"You will understand that Her Majesty's Government do not wish this force to be used against the rebels in any case except for the actual protection of the lives and properties of British subjects."

alliance, had been led, step by step, into the war with Russia. It was their duty to take care that the Government now presided over by the noble Lord should not drive us into a war, the results of which it was impossible to foresee. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, who had ever been the great champion of nationality, and who maintained the doctrine that nations had a right to self-government, and to select that form that best suited the wants and necessities of the people, was now engaged, in connection with the Government of France, in endeavouring to prop up the Tartar Government in China, contrary to what appeared to be the wishes of the great body of the population of that country. They might be told-as they had been told before-that the Taepings were a host of barbarians who ravaged the country with fire and sword, and were the enemies of the human race. He would undertake to say that those statements were not founded in fact-the statement was disproved both by the evidence contained in the blue-book and by inde

On the 8th of August, in the same year, the noble Lord, writing again to Mr. Bruce, observed, that if British subjects were taken prisoners, he should do his utmost to protect them from capital punishment, but that he should abstain from all interference in the civil war. He added, on the 7th of September following, that the Government agreed with Rear Admiral Hope in regard ing an attack on Nankin as highly impolitic; but that it might be expedient to defend the treaty ports, if the Chinese consented not to use those ports for the pur-pendent testimony. No doubt, the war poses of aggression. Nothing, therefore, was more clear than that the noble Lord was then desirous of abstaining from all aggression against the Taepings. No sooner, however, had the English and French forces assembled in Shanghai than they immediately proceeded to concert measures with the view of prosecuting active operations against that very people. Expeditions had been sent into the interior, and towns and fortresses captured from them. The next step was to undertake the disciplining of a large body of Chinese troops, and this force of 10,000 men was placed under the command of an American officer, named Ward, and acted in concert with the English and French forces; and the last was the arrangement made by Mr. Bruce, at Pekin, by which the surplus of the customs duties received at Shanghai, which was not required to pay the indemnity to France and England, should be applied to the purchase in England of vessels, to be manned and officered by Englishmen, and employed in operations against the Taepings upon the rivers of China. Thus, step by step we had been led on, until we found ourselves engaged as partisans in the bloody civil war which had been ravaging China for the last ten years. In a remarkable work lately published, it was explained how the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, having been entangled in a French

had from its commencement been carried on with great barbarity on both sides, the prisoners having been slaugh tered, and captured cities having been plundered and devastated. But there was quite as much barbarity exercised on the part of the Tartars as on that of the Taepings. Commissioner Lin, during the time he administered power in China, caused about 60,000 persons to be put to death. It was not correct to say that the Taepings laid waste or committed any atrocities in the towns where the inhabitants submitted to their Government. A commercial traveller in the employment of Messrs. Hart, of Ningpo, had travelled through the whole of the province of Chekiang, which was in the hands of the Taepings, and he stated that the poor were contented and happy, the country in a most flourishing condition, and the crops promising well, and that it was only on approaching Shanghai and the area of our hostile operations that the people were found to be wretched, poor, and suffering. This account was confirmed by a letter addressed by General Staveley to the Secretary of State for War, on the 3rd of July 1862, in which he stated that the Europeans who visited the rebel country for the purposes of trade were treated with civility, that large quantities of silk had been brought into Shanghai during the previous fortnight, and that trade

seemed to be in a thriving state. The devoted considerable labour, and which he enormous increase in the exports from had stated to the House with considerable Shanghai was a proof that the Taepings, ability; and undoubtedly there were other in whose hands was all the country from hon. Gentlemen who were prepared to have which the produce came, were not the ruth- taken part in the discussion which was less destroyers that they had been repre- naturally expected to arise. After the sented to be. In 1858-9 only 17,000,000 speech of the hon. Member had been folpounds of tea were exported from Shanghai; lowed by the speech of the hon. Member in 1861-2 the quantity was 53,000,000 for Inverness, it was naturally expected pounds; in 1853-4 only 58,000 bales of that some answer would be made by some silk were exported; in 1860-1 112,000 Member of the Government. He thought bales. Mr. Roberts, a missionary, passed that not merely ordinary routine, but commore than a year at the head-quarters of mon respect for the hon. Gentlemen who the Taepings at Nankin, and though he was had spoken, and for the House, ought to disappointed with their religious condition, have led the Under Secretary for Foreign he stated that they were not all bad, as Affairs to have made some reply to the the hon. Gentleman opposite represented, very important statement of facts which but that the evil was mixed with good. It had been laid before the House. But utter was impossible to believe that our desultory silence had been preserved on the Minisoperations upon the coast of China could terial bench. He considered the question exercise any influence upon the result of as affecting our relations with China, whethe great contest, and it therefore became ther viewed with relation to our commerce, a question whether, as far as our commer- viewed as a great political question, or cial interests were concerned, they would viewed in reference to the interests of the not do more harm than good. Almost all great mass of the people of this country, the produce which we received from China, to be one of the most grave and perilous whether tea, silk, or cotton, came from the that could be brought before Parliament. country which was under the government He believed that the forms of the House of the Taepings, who could, if they thought would not then allow the discussion to go proper, stop the trade. They must be well on, and he could only repeat his extreme aware that we had undertaken to collect astonishment at the course taken by the the customs duties, and they must soon Government. learn, if they did not already know it, that a portion of the money so collected was to be applied to the purchase in England of ships which were to be employed against them. Could we suppose that when they saw such active measures taken in support of their enemy, they would exhibit so much forbearance as to look on and take no steps to help themselves. It appeared to him that the Government had placed themselves in a false position, from which it was equally difficult to advance or recede; in their anxiety to advance our trade with China, they had, in his opinion, unhappily adopted a course which, in all probability, would lead to its destruction.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR said, he wished to express the same sentiments as those just uttered by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden). He had never witnessed such a scene before. One of the most important questions, affecting our relations with China, which had been introduced in an able and elaborate speech, was treated with something like contempt by the Members of the Government. To abstain from all notice of the speeches that had been made was treating the House and those hon. Members who had spoken with gross disrespect. He was of opinion that this question ought to be brought on again with the view of insisting upon an explanation forces were to be sent out to China, that from the Government. It appeared that the Foreign Enlistment Act was to be suspended, that the general policy of the country was to be altered-some persons entertained a belief that a conquest of China was in the contemplation of the Government, and that Captain Sherard Osborne was to be a second Clive, and that the first victory was to be a second Plassyand yet not one word was uttered by the Government. Such a course, on the part

of Her Majesty's Ministers, appeared to | done. Personally, he deplored the fact him to be the grossest disrespect to the that the Government did not reply to the House. He hoped that another opportu- statements made by the hon. Members nity would be afforded to hon. Members opposite. But when such an apathy was for the expression of their opinions upon shown on the part of the House, he did not this important question. He did not think think that they should display such a menthat they would be doing their duty to sure of wrath at the conduct of the Gotheir respective constituents if they did not vernment. insist upon knowing what the precise policy of the Government was in this respect.

LORD NAAS said, that during the fifteen years he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he never recollected a precedent for the conduct of the Government that evening. It appeared to him that of all the questions that could occupy the attention | of Parliament during the Session that of China was the most important. Notice of the hon. Gentleman's intention to bring forward the subject had been given for a month, and now it had been brought forward in a manner that ought to have commanded the calm consideration of the House and the Government. The hon. Member brought the subject forward in no party sense, but wished only to obtain an expression of the opinion of the House and of the Government as to the extra ordinary course taken by Her Majesty's Ministers in respect to China. If the Government chose to conduct the business of the country in that way, totally disregarding the usages and courtesy of the House, they might continue to deprive them of the opportunity of the discussion to which he looked forward. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government were in their places, and made no sign whatever of rising upon this question. He (Lord Naas) thought that the country would experience considerable disappointment when it found that this great question had been treated in this cavalier manner by the Government. He now gave notice that upon the earliest opportunity he would call the attention of the House to this subject, and the Government could not now complain if he interposed upon nights of Supply.

MR. LAYARD hoped he should be allowed to say a word or two in explanation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Question is"That I do now leave the Chair."

MR. LAYARD wished merely to explain. If his very warm and enthusiastic Friend the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) had looked at the paper, he would have seen, that if he (Mr. Layard) had spoken upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), that he would have been precluded from speaking again, although there were no less than five Questions on the paper (one of them being another on China from the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen), that would have demanded answers from him. He naturally did not like to preclude himself from the power of again rising, but intended in the one speech to reply to all the Questions that were on the paper. If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) took an interest in this question, he wondered that he had not risen to speak on it. (Mr. Layard) thought it was most unfair of hon. Members to visit him with those observations. He came down to the House fully prepared to speak upon the question, and the reason why he had not done so before this was to be attributed entirely to the manner in which the hon. Gentleman brought forward his Motion. He had taken notes of the hon. Gentleman's remarks; and if the debate was not carried on, it was the fault of the hon. Gentlemen who had abstained from taking part in it.

He

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary was under a misapprehension in supposing that he was precluded from speaking on MR. WHITE said, it was a rare thing the several Motions on the paper. The for him to come forward as the apolo- Question was that the Ilouse go into a gist of the Government; but he thought, Committee of Supply, and each of the when they recollected how few Members notices on the paper was a separate Motion. were in the House during the speeches It was therefore competent for the hon. of the hon. Gentlemen who addressed Gentleman to have addressed himself to the House upon this subject-sometimes each Question, and to have given his views not more than ten or twelve-when on it to the House. He was glad to find they saw so small an interest excited that it was owing to a misapprehension of on the matter, it was not surprising the the hon. Gentleman that this mistake had debate should have collapsed as it had occurred, and not owing to what appeared

to be a contempt of the feelings and opinions of hon. Members.

COLONEL SYKES reminded the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland included the very papers which he (Colonel Sykes) had intended to move for; and consequently, if that Motion had been carried, there would have been no necessity for the second Motion. As an independent supporter of the Government whenever his conscience would permit him, he could not but regret that a course had been adopted upon this occasion which must injuriously affect their reputation.

SIR HARRY VERNEY said, the practice of the House had been, when several subjects were brought forward, for the Ministers to reply to the whole afterwards. He would agree in bearing testimony to the ability and fairness with which the subject had been introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Northumberland; but he must say that from a study of the bluebook, and from information which he had received from other sources, he had come to the conclusion that the action of our Government in China had been taken merely for the purpose of protecting our fellowcountrymen and their property and interests. Although much was done by the Chinese Government which no one could approve, it was as nothing to the fearful atrocities of the Taepings. These latter ran over the land like a flight of locusts, destroying human life and the means of livelihood in one province, and then going off for a like purpose to another. As to the Taeping Government, there was no such thing. The conduct of our Government with regard to China had been marked by as much moderation as could be expected in a country like that. The whole state of things was exceptional; and it was not to be expected that our representatives could deal with the Chinese and the Taepings in the same manner as they would deal with Europeans. From all that he had heard, the only chance of restoring tranquillity to China was by the English Government giving a moderate support to the Chinese Government.

The Question that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair was then agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.

House resumed.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY

BILL.-THIRD READING. Moved, That the Bill be now read 3*.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships to defer the third reading of this Bill for six months. Although in delegating to Select Committees, the duty of taking evidence and reporting upon what are called private Bills, which are very often Bills of the greatest public importance, your Lordships are wont, as a general rule, to attach such weight to their decisions as practically to invest them with legislative power, I do not think that those decisions ought to be regarded as so conclusive, that when strong and sufficient reason is shown, they should not be reviewed. No five Members of your Lordships' House, however selected and however respectable, can be properly regarded as forming an infallible tribunal. Even the Judges of the land, fitted as they are by education, by learning, and by tried abilities for the judicial office, have, as your Lordships are well

Committee report Progress; to sit again aware, their judgments often called into

on Monday next.

question, appealed from, and reversed. Is

it, then, unreasonable to suppose that a The ground of their opposition, I must say. Select Committee may form an erroneous appeared to me very unconstitutional. It judgment? Is it not rather to be appre- was, that the decision of the Select Comhended, that though acting with the best mittee should be implicitly and without intentions, they may sometimes come to examination accepted. Such advice, after conclusions injurious to the public, from what had been urged against the Bill, was having before them only those who have an ignoring of the duty of the House to act their own interests to serve, and by whom on the best information within its reach; it reference is only made to the interests of was calculated to shake public confidence in the public so far as they may be subser- the soundness of your decisions, and it must vient to their own? Is it not, in fact, ma- have the effect of depriving your Lordships, nifest that such is often the case, when should you give a third reading to the Bill, we consider how many ill-devised railway of the power of doing so with that knowledge schemes, sanctioned by the Legislature on of its having any claim to acceptance which the sole recommendation of Select Com-alone could command respect for such a vote mittees, have involved individuals and pub-in the face of the objections that have been lic companies in ruinous expenses of no urged against it. My noble Friend the public advantage, and ofttimes preventing the undertaking of works that would be of service? It certainly appears to me that you cannot, with due regard to the interests that may be involved, exclude, where reasonable grounds are shown for it, examination and review of the Report of a Committee upon a private Bill; and if this may be said in the case of an ordinary Railway Bill, how much more, when, as in the present case, the question arises with regard to a metropolitan railway, affecting the interests of the second capital of the empire, displacing thousands of its inhabitants, and disfiguring its most beautiful thoroughfares, and all for an object which, as I shall presently show, the Bill will not accomplish? Having attended very much to the proceedings of the Select Committee, and been present during the last day of the inquiry, I can truly say, that when I left the room after hearing the important evidence given, regarding an alternative line of railway, suggested as preferable to that before the Committee, and the speeches of counsel on the whole case, it was with the firm conviction that the Bill would not be allowed to proceed; great, therefore, was my astonishment when I afterwards heard that it had been favourably reported on. My surprise was, I believe, shared by every one acquainted with the cases, and it was, I think, a sig-put a stop to the progress of several Metronificant circumstance, that when I rose to give notice of my opposition to the third reading of the Bill, notice was at the same time given by a noble Lord, not now in his place, of a Motion to have the evidence printed. I regret, that when last Friday that Motion came on, it was opposed by two such high authorities in this House as the noble President of the Council and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.

Chairman of the Select Committee objected to the printing of the evidence on the ground of its being unnecessary, inasmuch as the whole proceedings of the Committee had been regularly reported in the Irish newspapers. I should have expected from my noble Friend the manifestation of greater readiness to have the proceedings of his Committee examined into, for he must be aware that your Lordships have no file of any Irish newspaper to refer to. But he is very correct in saying that the Irish journals had made full reports. The inference is that the public took a very deep interest in the inquiry, and it is very much from the perusal of those reports that so much consternation and indignant feeling has been awakened that such a Bill should have passed through a Committee of this House. Should it eventually become law, my noble Friend's name will be immortalized by it, for it is known in Ireland under the title of the Llanover Disfigurement Bill. I hope my noble Friend is not ambitious thus to connect his name with a great public work, but that he will rather consent to have the Bill, and any other scheme for carrying out those public objects which in the course of his inquiry he has ascertained to be desirable, referred to a Commission sitting in Dublin. It is not very long since your Lordships

politan Railway Bills for London, and appointed a Committee of eighteen noble Lords, selected as the most capable of forming a correct judgment, to inquire and report in what manner provision could best be made for securing a comprehensive plan of metropolitan railway communication, with the greatest advantage to the public, and least inconvenience to the local arrangements of the metropolis." Yet