Commons Sitting of 11 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Tithe Composition (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Elliot, from Roxburghshire, for Annual Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, and Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. O'Connell, from several places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws; from one place, for the Emancipation of the Jews; and from another place, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. Villiers, from three places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws. —By Messrs. Dunbar, and Elliot, from several places, against Lay Patronage.—By Colonel Rushbrooke, Sir C. B. Vere, and Colonel T. Wood, from several places, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Lowther, from York, against the Clergy Reserves Bill.—By Mr. Oswald, from Glasgow, in favour of the Copyright Designs Bill. —By Mr. Hodgson, from Swansea, against the Municipal Reform Act.

WAR WITH CHINA—ORDER IN COUNCIL.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he had given notice of a motion for the production of the orders in council, directing reprisals to be made on vessels belonging to the Emperor of China, or any of his subjects, but he found that the necessity for that motion was obviated by the order in council which the noble Lord had just laid on the table, directing such reprisals, and ordering a commission for the constitution of Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty Courts. That commission had not yet been made out, but he hoped that when it should have received the assent of the Crown, there would be no Objection to laying a copy of it before the House. [Viscount Palmerston: None.] It was not his intention to say anything which could raise any debate on the subject at present, but he apprehended that the order in council authorized positive instructions to be given to all her Majesty's vessels of war to seize all vessels belonging to the Emperor of China, or to any of his subjects. This he apprehended was not a limited but a general order, extending not alone to the coasts of China, but to vessels of that nation wheresoever found. Then, in the event of seizure taking place, he would ask what was to become of the property so seized? Were such seizures to become droits of the Crown? He apprehended that the Admiralty Courts would not proceed at once to adjudication, but that the course would be to detain the vessels, as the adjudication would depend on ulterior events, upon the contingency of the Emperor of China making compensation for the losses sustained by British subjects. But the principal

997
question which he wished to put to the noble Lord Was, whether the order in council contained instructions to all her Majesty's vessels of war, to seize all ships belonging to China, in whatever seas they might be found?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the order in council contained full authority to all captains of her Majesty's ships of war to seize and detain all Chinese vessels they might fall in with; but practically the order would apply only to such of her Majesty's ships as were on the coast of China—for Chinese vessels were to be met with only in the seas bordering on their own coasts. The vessels seized would be kept in safe custody until the demands of her Majesty's Government were satisfied. If due reparation were made, they would of course be released; if that reparation should be refused, the Admiralty Courts would adjudicate on them, and when condemned, the proceeds would be disposed of as her Majesty might think fit.
Sir R. Peel: The noble Lord then assumed, that the trade of China was carried on only on its own coasts? [Viscount Palmerston: Yes.] In ordinary circumstances that was perhaps the case, but under new circumstances there might be exceptions. He would now beg to ask the noble Lord whether the usual proclamation as to the distribution of prize money had been issued?
Viscount Palmerston: No such proclamation has been issued.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that such proclamations were not issued, except in cases where war had been declared, and there had yet been no such declaration. All that had been done was no more than an attempt to obtain reparation for injuries sustained.
Sir R. Peeldid not wish to enter into the question of war. He had purposely avoided any reference to that question at present.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) had asked him, on a former evening, whether it was the intention of Ministers to bring down any message from the Crown relating to hostilities with China. He had begged to decline an answer at the moment, as the Government reserved to themselves the answer, in order to wait further accounts from China, which might have rendered a message from the Crown necessary. The accounts which had since reached England were not such as made it incumbent on the
998
Government to bring down a message from the Crown. As, however, he had no desire to conceal any information that he could fairly give, he would say, that considering all the cases of hostile collision in which messages had been sent, and those in which they had been withheld, he wished to have it understood, that as far as the proceedings with respect to China had yet gone, it was not intended to advise the Crown to send down a message to Parliament.
Subject dropped.