§ Mr. Mackinnonwished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any truth in a report very generally believed, that war had been declared against China?
§ Lord J. Russellsaid, there had been no official intelligence amounting to what the hon. Member stated, namely, a declaration of war against China. Instructions had been given to the Governor-general of India to make some active preparations, and, although no intelligence of the nature alluded to had been received, he presumed that some directions given, or some act done, by the Governor-general, had given rise to the report of a declaration of war having been made.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, supposing that the declaration should prove to be true, and that, in consequence of instructions which had been given to the Governor-general of India, a declaration of war was made, and some document was published containing that declaration, he wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, two questions. First, whether that war, if proclaimed, would be carried on on account of the supreme authority of this country and at the expense of the united empire? And, second, whether 1156 or no the Government would bring down any message to Parliament announcing the intention of her Majesty to resort to hostilities?
§ Viscount Palmerstonapprehended that any communication which might take place with the government of China would be carried on in the name of the Queen of this country, and that whatever assistance might be afforded by the Governor-general of India to any operations which might be carried on in China would be assistance lent to this country under the responsibility of the Government of this country, and not of the East India Company. With regard to the other question, it was not at present the intention to send down any message of the kind.
§ Sir R. Peelwas only supposing it to be the case that war had been proclaimed on account of our present position with regard to China, which was very different from that in which we stood previous to the renewal of the charter of the East India Company. His question was whether, in the event of hostilities being resolved on, any formal message would be sent down to the House?
§ Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the communications, whatever they might be, which took place between this country and China would be carried on in the name of the Queen of Great Britain, and not in the name of the Governor-general of India.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, that was the very reason why he had put the question. In the case of an Indian war, he could quite understand why no message should be sent down to Parliament; that course was prescribed by ordinary usage. But in this case the noble Lord had stated that hostilities were to be carried on at the charge of the country and in the name of her Majesty. He presumed, therefore, that some formal communication should be made to Parliament on so important a measure as that of war, if a recourse to it were found necessary.
§ Viscount PalmerstonI used the word "communications" not "hostilities."
§ Mr. G. Palmerinquired whether or not other instructions besides those which had been communicated to the House, had been forwarded to the British Superintendent in China?
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that undoubtedly, besides the instructions founded on those papers which had been laid on the table of the House, sent to her 1157 Majesty's superintendent at Canton, there were others; but they were of such a nature that he apprehended they could not be laid before the House.
§ Mr. G. Palmerasked whether there were not other instructions besides those which were given to Sir F. Maitland?
§ Viscount Palmerston.—There were not any other instructions bearing on the subject to which the papers relate.
§ Mr. Herrieswished to know whether the noble Lord, could communicate to the House anything further upon the subject of compensation for the opium destroyed. No communication was to be found in the papers already produced of a later date than the 13th of June, 1839, from the superintendent at Canton. Were those all the papers that the noble Lord meant to lay before Parliament.
§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that every paper had been laid on the Table of the House which had been moved for, and which it appeared to be expedient to lay before the Home, and necessary to give full information on the subject.
§ Subject dropped.