The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-07 00:00:00

NEW WRIT FOR EAST CUMBERLAND.

On the motion of Mr E. J. Stanley, a new writ was
ordered to issue for East Cumberland, in the room of
Major Aglionby, deceased.
SUDBURY ELECTION.

The SPEAKER informed the House that be

had received a notice from Mr. G. Tomline, stat-
ing that it was not his intention to defend his
eloction or return for the borough of Sudbury.

INDIAN ARMY.

The RIGUIT HON. GENTLEMAN also informed the

House that he had received a letter from the Earl of Auck-
land, the Governor-General of India, in answer to the
vote of thanks ordered by the House to the Governor-
General and the army in India. In that letter the Noble
Earl expressed his grateful acknowledgements for the
thanks voted to himself and the British troops in India.
CANAL COMPANIES.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to ask the Hon.
Member for Lancaster a few questions respecting a Bill
which had been introduced by him for enabling Canal
Companies generally to become carriers of goods.—
( Hear.) He wished to ask whether it was
his intention at that late period of the Ses-
sion to proceed with the important Bill, and
whether he intended to introduce a motion for an in-
quiry before he forced the Bill through Parliament, and
lastly, whether he had well considered whether it was
t ) be treated as a public or a private Bill.
Mr. GREENE begged: to state that it was his
intention to forward, as rapidly as he could.
that Bill through Parliament, because he conceived
that in the present state of competition between
railroads and canal companies it would be im-
possible for the latter to carry on their business,
unless they had the power of carrying goods. With re-
-pect to the second question, he feared that if the Bill
:was referred tog Committee, it would be impossible
peo.letutte•thp Bill, _with ;Any chance of success, and
:lifsidesvvisnsiderob/cLinformattou;,bad been already ob.
lamed on the subject4,widOreSpect to the, third question,
he:had no doubt whatever, but that it was a public Bill,
at it affected -all:Canal-Acts throughout the kingdoin •
while it did not repeal any of their clauses, but
merely enabled them to become carriers.

CHINA.
Sir It. PEEL begged to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a opestioa or two
with respect to our relations with the Chinese and the
Government of China. Since he had last put a question
to the Noble Lord the Order in Council had appared
in the Gazette. He had understood from the Noble
Lord, that its not being published was a mere inad-
vertence. In looking over the various instances
in which orders in Council had been passed,
iLuthorising the detention and holding in custody
of ships and cargoes ; in every instance since 1792, the
Orders in Council, authoriSinz such detention, ha(.`.
been unifmtnly published in the Gazette. lie had only
referred to that, that it might not be drawn into
a precedent. The Noble Lord hail stated,

that it was an inadvertence, and he would say 113 more
on that p )int, further than that the inadvertence might
not be established as a precedent. The gene-
ral rule was, that in such cases official notification
was given in the Gazelle. Ile wished now to ask the
Noble Lord what were the present relations with the
Government of China, and he put that question
on account of the nature of the Order in
Council which had just been published. It authorises
the detention and holding in custody of vessels, ships,
and cargoes, belonging to the Emperor of China
or his subjects, or other parties, natives of China. To
that he apprehended no question would arise, and in
that case the Order in Council was not tantamount
to a declaration of hostilities.—( Hear, hear.) It
was merely an equivocal state, the character of
which might be afterwards stamped upon it by sub-
sequent events. For instance, if peace en-
sued, it would he a condition of peace, or if
afterwards a declaratioa of hostilities ensued, that ce-
claration would have a retroactive operation, and that
equivocal state might be converted into a state of warfare.
But the Order in Council that had been issued was not
a simple Order in Council authorising the detention of
vessels, and it appeared to him (Sir 8.. Peep to be depart-
ing from the usage which had been hitherto—at least
ordinarily, although he would not say without exception
—pursued. That Order in Council, in the first place,
authorised the detention and holding in custody of
vessels without condition, but in the second place
that same Order in Council contained a conditional
order for the forcible seizure and forfeiture of ships and
cargoes. It was dependent on a contingency, namely,
that the Emperor of China should thereafter make full
reparation and satisfaction to her Majesty. The Order
in Council also contained an unconditional order
—an order without qualification or condition—to
the Courts of Admiralty in all parts of the world
to proceed to deal judicially with the ves-
sels and cargoes so seized. What he wished
to know from the Noble Lord was, whether the nature
of that 0. der in Council, it being not merely an order
for detention and holding in custody, but also a con-
ditional order for forcible seizure and adjudication by
the Courts of Admiralty, made any difference what-
ever in our relations with China? whether we were
still in that equivocal state between peace and w.;.r,
the character of which might be impressed on it by
subsequent events, or whether the Noble Lord consi-
dered we were in a state of hostility with China ?
Lord PALMEItSTON certainly did consider that

the nature of that Order in Council determined the
nature of our existing relations with China. If the
Right Hon. aaronet asked what these relations were, he
would state, that as far as the operations of the expedition
which had proceeded to the China seas were concerned,
it was impossible, from time and distance, to state
what effect that expedition might have produced upon
our relations with China. What the relations of the
two countries might be as arising out of hostilities that
had already taken place was known, of course,
to all the world. In the first place, be
begged to state that the Order in Council was
in te Gazelle on the very evening the Right Hon-
ourable Baronet had asked the question. It was
quite true, as the Right Hon. Baronet had stated, that
that Order in Council, or these Orders in Council, ra-
ther, went further in regard to provision than had been
i usual in cases of that sort ; but the necessity of
doing so arose from the peculiarity of the
question itself; and from the distance between this
country and the power with respect to which the Order
in Council was to apply. If they had had to proceed
iu revard to a country within reasonable reach of Eng-

land, they might in the first place have ordered simple
reprisa's and detention for safe custody as a
means of operating morally on the Government;
and they might postpone till they saw the result
that, the Order in Council for constituting Courts of
Admiralty to judge and condemn ships. The Right
Honourable Baronet would see it would not have been
possible to have done that in the first instance.
For instance, suppose that a certain number of vessels
were detained on the coast of China, yet the
satisfaction offered by the Emperor of China was
sufficient, no harm could arise ; but sup-
pose, on the contrary, that the Government
of China refused to give satisfaction, and hostilities
of a more decided character were to take
place, in that case the ships Which had been detained
for safe custody would become prizes of war, and sub-
jects of adjudication ; and if they had. neglected to
empower the Courts of Vice-Admiralty in India to
take cognizance of such matters, they would have
been obliged to have waited to receive notice
of the events, and of the failure to settle
affairs by negociation, and then more time would be
lost—generally from eight to ten months before orders
from home arrived out there, and great inconvenience
would have arisen. Therefore it was that in this case
they gave a contingent power to the Courts of VC3.-.
Admiralty, not to adjudicate upon all ships which were
detained, but such ships as were sent before them by
the detaining officer.
Sir R. PEEL was not entitled to enter into any
arguments upon the question, but the relations of this
country with Foreign nations was a most important one
to our merchants, and it was necessary that they should
have every possible information upon such a subject. He
understood the purport of the answer of the Noble
Lord to be, that although the Orders in Council were
different from former orders, still they in no respect
altered the position of our relations with China any
more than had they been simple Orders in Council.
Lord PALMERSTO N.—Yes.

Sir R. PEEL—The next question he had to ask
was, when a vessel was seized and sent to a Coui t, it
would depend upon whether or no the Emperor of China
gave satisfactory explanations, it would he adjudicated
upon ; and if so, upon what authority the question
would be determined. Was thtre any legal authority,
any power given to any one to say whether the repara-
tion offered was sufficient or not ?

Lord PALMERSTON—For the same reason be-
fore stated—viz., distance, full Authority had been given
to an authority to determine on behalf of the Govern-
ment whether the reparatioa offered was sufficient or not.

Sir ROBERT PEEL—In what position would the
foreign merchant resident in China be placed ? Was
the Noble Lord aware that there was an impor-
tant variance between the recital of the Orders
in Council and the directory part of them
The directory part ordered all our vessels to detain
and hold in custody all vessels belonging to the
Emperor of China and all persons inhabiting
that country. Under this direction our ve,,sels
must detain the vessels of ail persons resang
in China, whose case was not mentioned in the recital.
He wished to know, if the Noble Lord had no ob-
jection to make the statement, what he considered
would be the situation of foreign merchants, Ameri-
cans for instance, who belonged to the factories ;
because as he understood in the East a merchant was
considered to belong to the country to which the factory
belonged ; but in this country a Dutchman carrying
on business in an American factory would be considered
a Dutchman ?

Lord PALMERSTON said, that in that respect
the Order in Council had been copied from the previous
Orders in Council. The course usually pursued under
such Orders in Council, he believed, was to detain
the vessels of those that were neutral, and also those
with whom the country was at war ; and then, if the mat-
ter in dispute was brought to an amicable conclu-
sion, both the ships and the cargoes were released, but
if war ensued, then the ships of the client,: were con-
demned, and the neutral cargo was restored by the
sentence of a Court of Admiralty duly commissioned
for the purpose ; and, ii after hostilities had commenced,
any neutral who chose to fix his residence in the state
which was at war, assumes! the character of a common
enemy, and would be treated as such.