HC Deb 05 June 1845 vol 81 cc137-8
Captain Berkeley

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having rewarded our Plenipotentiary and many of the officers engaged in the Chinese war for the services which they there had rendered, it was the intention of the Government to withhold the prize money from the common soldiers, sailors, and marines, contrary to the invariable custom on such occasions; and whether the same course was to be pursued with Sir Charles Napier's army in Scinde?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that those who had attended to the causes of the Chinese war, and to the manner in which it had been undertaken, would know that there was no declaration of war and no prize act in that case, and that the property taken was consequently used as a fund for compensating British residents who had suffered losses in consequence of the war, and for compensating the Government for what they had done; strictly speaking, therefore, there could be no prize money. When Sir H. Pottinger proceeded to Canton, he directed, not that "prize agents" should be appointed (that, under the circumstances, would have been impossible), but that "public agents" should be appointed to take charge of the property which fell into the hands of the British forces. The property so taken, when reduced to money, amounted to about 110,000l. The Government, on receiving the first instalment for the ransom of Canton, thought it just that remuneration should be made to the captors, and accordingly a grant of batta was made to them, under which the troops and seamen received amongst them 153,000l. At the termination of the war the Government again thought it just and right to propose that they should participate in another grant which amounted to about 255,000l. It would, therefore, be seen that the liberality of the Crown had been exercised on two several occasions to the extent of 415,000l. With respect to Scinde, the question had only been recently brought under the consideration of the Treasury, which was in communication with the Board of Control on the subject. He was not, therefore, yet prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question as regarded Scinde.

Forward to