The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-19 00:00:00

considerable plunder, had net squandered it, and had shown
themselves the friends of the people whom they had eon-
vored This was tbe testimony of one the members of
the Government, and I've would tali the attention •.t Honour-
able Members to it. They had been regularly in the habit of
ailoiviog the Indian army not only batta, but also that which
they took or destroyed while engaged in warfare. Would they
treat the army of China worse than that of India, or would
they deprive the army of Sinde of that bounty hitt erto awarded
the armies of India for successful warfare? '1 here ought to
be no such distinction made. The Chinese army had been
engaged in long and arduous warfare, and had carried out
some of the moat brilliant achievements that ever had been
accomplished by British arms. The Gallant Member then
went into a sketch of the war in China, detailing some of the
most remarkable victories of the campaign, and the sufferings
and fatigue to which the naval and land forces had been sub-
jected. The Hon. Member then read a letter from Captain
Grey, detailing the sufferings of the men during the year
1840. Now, there were men who were fur voting to make
their way into the interior of China, with the evidence of this
mortality before them. When they had their prize money
they might have effected this, if they had been sure of it.
But paltry as that was—and he would tell them what it was—
the superior officers had from 1001. to 2001., and the petty
officers had 4/. If the latter had been employed in the
dockyards, instead of being engaged in China, they would
have received one-third more than they would receive for
their services in that country. Surely this was the hardest
ease that ever was. Supposing that a poor widow had two sons
engaged in this no-war, what would be her
feeling—supposing these two sons were killed in the service of
their country—when she went to receive their prize-money, and
was tendered 41. for each—each of her children ? Why, it
was said that the navy was discouraged—that no man would
enter into the service; but if men were well paid there would
be no such hesitation. But the moment men had earned their
prize-money, as in this ease, in stepped the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and said that they had al, eady received a donation
in batta. He had gone thus far in endeavouring to assert the
rights of those deserving men, and in doing so contended that
he looked only for their rights ; and no Member of that House
could deny that they were the just and fair rights of these
men. Could the House refuse what these men asked, when
they remembered how others had been rewarded for their ser-
vices? Look at Lord Exmouth ; he got 100,000/. for
the taking of a place which he did not keep
five minutes. He did not mean to say that that reward was
not well deserved ; but he denied that those men who bad
served in China were not as brave and as determined, and as
humane, as any soldiers in the British army.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Wm. Parker had been rewarded for
their services, and no Member of that House could stand up and
say they had not earned it; but surely if the services they had
rendered their country were deserving of such reward, that was
a still stronger argument in favour of those men whose cause he
advocated, and who had received but 41. each.—( Hear, hear.).
He feared he was but a weak advocate in the cause of those
whose rights he had undertaken to defend ; but he di I hope
that the House would acknowledge the justice of that cause,
and that it would accede to his motion, which was but an act of
simple justice. If the House refused to reward men who had
fought so hardly, he could tell the Government that they could
hold out no inducement to men to enter the service, and they
would give the greatest blow to the British navy that it could
receive.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that in
rising to oppose the motion he trusted the House would not
believe that he meant to deny the bravery, or zeal, or humanity
of those who fought in China. But he begged to remind the
Hon. and Gallant Member that the power of conferring re-
wards of this sort had always been most jealously reserved to
the Crown. He had stated, on a former occasion, that it was
laid down at the outset of those operations that they were un-
dertaken for the purpose of enforcing compensation for monies
taken from British subjects, and of compelling the Chinese to
conform to the practice of civilised nations. But in order to give
a title to prize money, there must be a declaration of war, a
proclamation of the Crown granting prize money, and an Act
of Parliament determining the manner in which the prize
money should be distributed. If the principle now set up were
acceded to, it would involve this country in the greatest
difficulties whenever it should be found necessary to make
reprisals upon any foreign power. The Honourable Gen-
tleman had said that the grant in this case was a
niggardly one, and spoke of the quantity of prize money
as magnificent, whereas there was no prize at all,—( Hear. )
In fact, when Chinese vessels were taken and retained, appli-
cation was made to Sir H. Pottinger to appoint prize agents.
But he declared that the vessels were not captured as prizes,
but only to be detained until proper restitution should be made
by the Chinese Government. Yet, in making recompence to
the officers and men for the services rendered, it was thought
right to have some regard to the value of the captures, which,
under other circumstances, would have been prizes. Accord-
ingly, 420,0001. was allotted, which the Hon. Gentleman con-
sidered far below the value of the property captured. But, in
fact, it was more than the value. In Syria, and at Algiers,
the gratuities were far less than the value of the property cap-
tured. With rerpect to the distribution of the gratuity, he ad-
mitted that it had taken place in this case in a manner some-
what different from the regulated distribution of ordinary prize-
money. The principle of batta, which prevailed in Indian ser-
vice, was adopted ; because, under the circumstances, it would
have been inconvenient, and pregnant with cause of dissatis-
faction to adopt any other principle. The Hon. Gentleman had
drawn the picture of a boy dying in the arms of victory, with
the hope that his prize-money would render the last days of an
aged parent comfortable. But the Hon. Gentleman ought to
know that he was holding out delusive expectations in such a
statement as that ; for he must know that a private soldier or
sailor could not expect to receive for his share any amount
which would enable him to leave his successors in independ-
ence.—( Hear, hear.) It was very well known that, in time of
war, it was impossible so to apportion the prizes that the most
deserving should be the best rewarded. He denied, there-
fore, that there was any ground of complaint in this case.
420,0001. had been distributed ; and, in fact, the whole value
of the captures was no more than 117,0001. It was quite idle
to say that the compensation given by the Chinese Govern-
ment was to be regarded as prize.—(Hear.) It was a most
painful position for any man to be'placed in—a position to be
obliged to resist applications to the House for recompence to
the most deserving members of the military and naval services.
—(Hear, hear.) Still he was compelled to resist applications
so groundless as the present. He could not think so badly as
the Hon. Gentleman opposite of the seamen and soldiers in
her Majesty's service, that they would have refused to do their
duty unless theywere certain of increased emolument—of a sudden
largess. He could say no more as to the amount of the re-
compence already given, than that it exceeded the amount of
the captures, that it would be received with satisfaction by the
officers, seamen, soldiers, and marines engaged in the opera-
tions against China, and that it would stimulate them, if any
stimulus were wanted, to equal gallantry on future services.
Sir U. NAPIER said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
set out, as was usual when justice was going to be denied, by
reminding the House that this was a constitutional Govern-
ment.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that there
was no war, and there could be no prize money. But this was
not the case, for, in 1804, when four frigates were sent out to
watch the Spanish galleons, and succeeded in capturing them
as prizes, there was no declaration of war. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer must have a bad memory. for, only last year, he
stated, on the subject of the Danish claims, that the vessels
captured by Denmark were good prizes, because no war had
b. en declared, and now, he said that the Chinese junks were
not prizes becau.e war had not been declared. Here
was a war for three years, a tedious, though not a very bloody
war, because they were contending with enemies not very well
acquainted with the science of arms, but a war in which much
danger and hardship was incurred, was now called by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer no war at all ! But what said the
Duke of Wellington? Why, in a speech in the House of
Lords, contrasting the state of England in its services abroad,
he appealed to the war in Spain, in Affghanistan, and China,
and yet, forsooth, at this hour of the day, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was to come down to the House and seriously state
that no war against China had been declared.—( Hear, hear.)
Let them look at other instances, and see what had been the
course previously adopted. At Navarino, an affair of one day,
60,000/. was given for prize-money to be di-tributed among
one ship of the line and four or five frigates, and that for an
an action of about three hours. At Algiers, for a work also of
a few hours, a very large sum was voted for prize. money ; and,
though war was not then formally declared, the Secretary to the
Admiralty took care to prove that a war actually existed,
and accordingly received war pay. The petty officers received
at that period 171. each; for the six weeks affair at Syria 13/.
was allotted ; while for the China war of three years 4/. was
given for one year, and in all about 161. was granted, because
they were told, after hard lighting during that prolonged
period, that war was not declared ! Why, if that assertion
were true, then were the English no better than pirates in
seizing the ships of the Chinese, and the Government no better
than deceivers in placarding Portsmouth, Plymouth, and the
other naval ports, with announcements that the fortunes of the
sailors who went out to China would be made by all the batta
they would receive.—(Hear, hear.) Why were they not told
honestly that they were to go and fight in a distant and foreign
war—that they would receive plenty of hard knocks, but no
prize money.—( Hear, hear.) But, by the present system, the
petty officers, one of the moat important classes in the ships,
and who were looked on by all as the chief instruments to sup-
press mutiny, were treated in the same manner as boy a. It was
all very well to talk of the sailors fighting for honour and glory,
but no man would be found to accept war on such terms ;
every British sail,r fought for his prize-money, not his glory—.
(Oh, oh)—he did not mean glory in the way Honourable Gen-
tlemen opposite interpreted it, but he repeated, that while
British seamen fought for that honour which all men felt a
pride in receiving, yet if it were not for the 'hope of a fair and
more tangible reward, they would not fight at all. For these
reasons he should vote for the motion of his Gallant Friend near

him.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. J. A. SMITH thanked the Gallant Commodore near
him for the ability and vigour with which he pleaded the sailor's
cause, and thought the latter had been the victims of the

special pleading of the Government.
Mr. H. BERKELEY thought there must be some gross
injustice committed on the sailors of this country, when 80,000
of them were to be found at the present moment serving in the
navy of America. Who was it but British sailors took the
Macedonia and the Java, and fought in a thousand other ac•

.ions in the service of a foreign foe ?—( Hear. )
Captain PECHELL advocated the claims of the naval
part of the forces employed in the Chinese war, and contended
that the officers and seamen were entitled to compensation for
the property they had lost, and the diseases, from fever and
other sources, which they had suffered in the inclement climate
of the country in which they had been employed. The Bri-
tish seaman had been put on a lower level than the Indian
sepoy by the mode of distribution of prize money. 420,0001.
did appear a large sum as batta money to be distributed, but
it was not generally known how many had to participate in it.
He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not
treated the motion of his Hon. Friend with sufficient courtesy.
Sir R. PEEL said he could not conceive anything more
dangerous or of evil tendency than the motion proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite. if the House acted on the prin-
ciple of the Hon. Gentleman the presumption would be that
the Government had no duty to perform towards the country;
and it might almost be supposed that the Ministry had been
appropriating the money to their own private purposes. The
commercial community had more reason to complain than the
army or navy had. It was a most disagreeable duty for the
Ministry to refuse any of the claims ; and nothing was more
easy than for a public man to be liberal. No one could estimate
more highly than he (Bir R. Peel) the services
to be o
which had been
rendered by the a
in
most China.
peculiar The
na t services c e whichhe n.
hadbeen
rendered rui y
werend
of
structions given to the comn-na::y nder ware, that they should try
ot of
themake
la
land
iamn
dp re
presences sio oon
ant he
pC
rhoi
tneecbst:
at bihnee
of
dem the i .
or enf takingrlmoe
rci
a C h possessionne sinterestse
.71
as far as possible. The su
was partly to be expended in discharge of
poafpthleied odetbtsthoef the Hong
merchants, and the remainder to b
disburse-
ment of the:exses of the war. The sum that had been ac-
twuasa I 1
known
npo awind
bf for
tbe oa remunerationm e
o f
„obf a servicestta rn o nwe
ya
c4e2sHoo,eo Of
wt
that nature
whichdco n
-
tend that the subject of remuneration for sery
ought to
would be dangerous be t tot he
a discretioneronaotfo
interfere.Crown'sthe prerogative,
withwhich
Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the speech of the Hon. and
Gallant Member had been most completely answered by the
Ministry. He must say that the motion before the House, if
pressed to a division, would be a very unwise proceeding.
After so liberal a reward as 420,000/. offered by the Crown for
the naval and mility services rendered, no further remuneration
oug,lat to be made.
Lord PALMERSTON said the motion of his Honour-
able and Gallant Friend was not without example. In
the ease of Navarino a similar motion had been made,
and reptl}i4l7 lamer relAumiti9u than bad been