Page images
PDF
[ocr errors]

rwj.dcnt'here ander our protection. Not :n,y Sir *r. ^ianntan, md mother gentleman, who. frm his l-'aj residence in CH m. wis en*:'.ie<i to be considered a t.\rh Wj.'tw, he rnennt Mr. Dratnmond, w io *;are<i, tn.it the C"-neser in the event of a murder or homicide, would put to pun;*?* waa fuli ot embarrassment, and it j death anv per3oa d<?Lvered op to them ww» as discreditable to the character of; whether zw.'f.y or innocent; with what tW emptor at it waa to the character of j the Chinese. indeed, called a regular trial, th« Pi.t^S nation. But such cases hap- j but which was, in fact, most irregular and pviurd. Tbeo came tbe embarrassment, if unjust. Tbe Chinese hell tbe Governth« Chines* government had chosen to j meats of foreign countries responsible for

the conduct of all their soH-ects in China. Sir G. Staunton stated, that the Company's servants would be held responsible,

it* rights, ami resented these infraction* ut its acknowledged jurisdiction, th«v would have slopped the trade, and

t!>i»i w>Mnd h.»ve been attended with great j not only for the condnct of the crews of Via Coms anv, however, in more j all private vessels, but also for all the t Mii .jmi n>tance» t:»h ed the loss of trade, t crews of the king's ships there. And Sir

George went on to give an instance of an
American, who being given up to the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

some misunderstanding as to the operation of the present bill. lis object merely was to extend the powers of the existing law to the trial of civil offences. 11 is lion. Friend had complained of the arbitrary dictatorial power confided to the Government, which, by an order in Council could establish Courts for the trial of any offences there. He admitted that such was the case, but there was no remedy for it. His hon. Friend and the House must perceive the difficulty of passing any law embodying such a code as would be applicable to all offences that might arise. It was proposed by the present measure to give to those Courts a power of adjudicating between a British subject, and persons of any other nation, or Chinese, when an appeal was made to them against a British subject. In the bill of 1833 power was given to levy certain tonnage duties to defray the expenses of the establish

the lion. Member for Portsmouth, published some time since ; and although, ho wus disposed to give them thu credit they deserved, he must remind the noble Lord, that whatever might have been the opinion of tho hon. Member for Portsmouth under other circumstances, he wai decidedly opposed to the measure proposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord was perfectly correct when he stated, that when he had the honour of being tho noble Lord's colleague, he had taken some part in framing n measure, that was then brought under the consideration of the House. Ho never regretted that, because the measure had the effect, notwithstanding all that had been said against it, of opening the China trade. But lie found himself bound to say, that experience had convinced him, that the clauses were unnecessary, and he now considered, that it would be highly inexpedient to

ment of these Courts, but upon further extend their operation. It was clear,

consideration, it was felt that such a pro ceeding would be an injury to the trade with China, and the plan was abandoned. The expenses of these Courts have, from that period, been the subject of an annual vote by Parliament. He thought when he

that Lord Napier leaving this country with an erroneous impretsion of the powers intrusted to him, did so demean himself to the Chinese authorities as seriously to endanger our commercial relations with that country, and exposed himself to such

was bringing in a bill upon this subject it annoyances as he fully believed cost him

would be better to repeal that part of the his life. Those who accompanied him

law which empowered the Crown to levy , bt-ing taught by experience so modified

duties, and therefore a clause had been their course of proceeding as to be able

introduced, in the present bill to that to renew our intercourse. The Chinese

effect He also felt, that it would be never allowed us to fix ourselves at Cauton, desirable to alter the title of the officer who was to administer the law; and for that purpose a clause bad been introduced, giving the power and authority

and in place of having three superintendants resident there, we had oolv one officer exercising the powers of a Consul. He bad no doubt but that tbe Chinese hitherto vested in the Superintendent to the < would take every advantage of tbe court as Consul; at the same time, however, he ' plaintiffs, but they would never submit to felt bound to say, that he considered it, its jurisdiction as defendants, so tint it

desirable, that the power should be given to Consuls, be thought it might be expedient, considering the character of the Chinese nation, and their aversion to change, for some time longer to retain the title of Superintendent. These were tbe chief features of tie bill, and with these explanations be trusted the House would allow it to %o imo Committee.

would prove to be a gross hardship on British subjects.—If these extraordinary powers were granted, it would be imposs*ble to intrust their exercise to the ordinary authorities; there must be some high legal authority. He had sossewbere read that all the earth was to be put mwUr a Cossmissioo—and be supposed there must be a barrister or a Commission of barristers.

Sir J. GroJuim felt bound to express of six veare standing, sent osrt to China to

r 0—— — - - —

put a taw in execution, acknowledged to be arbitrary to its nature. Vosr, as to tbe authority of Sir G. Staunton, which tbe coble Lord bad footed, tiiat hon. tWoaet Lad riaee suoi his opiatous, aod was The noble Load bad read to opposed to ti.it Ihil Besides the otMe a work of Lord rs*!*d lit c**e 6a the p&ptrs lust

las regret, that the noble Lord should hare thought it necessary, La the present state of the Hoaute, and at ibis advanced period of the Sessioo, to bring vaoer hs question of sath great

had been produced when there was no consent on the part of the Chinese signified, and he (Sir J. Graham) begged the House to recollect that captain Elliot, in his last despatch (July 1837) had stated that the Chinese were daily becoming more anxious to stand well with the British Government, but they were very jealous as to this point on which the noble Lord wished to venture, and was it prudent to run such a risk at a period when every thing was running smoothly? He would ask the noble Lord whether he did not think it prudent to wait for further accounts from that country before he called on the House, at this late period of the Session, to pass a measure which might interfere with the commercial relations which were every day becoming more important, and which had been the source of great prosperity to our commerce. In the last dispatch, dated the 26th September, 1837, Captain Elliot said, he had no hesitation in stating that it was in his power to secure for the Provincial Parliament the most formal sanction of these operations. If that was the case delay would be of considerable advantage. Although he was favourable to the motion of the hon. Member opposite, he should like the bill to go into Committee, because he approved highly of the fifth clause for the repeal of the Tonnage duties; and he therefore thought it highly desirable that so much of the bill should pass. It appeared to him, that consistently with the whole course of British policy, with international law and past experience, it would be unadvisable to pass the remainder of the bill. If some understanding were not come to on the point, he should, in the event of a division, vote against the bill.

Mr. Wurburton hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his resolution, and allow the bill to go into Committee. It was most c3sentiul that these tonnage duties should be repealed, and the Government having given its assent, they were certain of carrying the proposition to a favourable result. With regard to other clauses of the bill, he hoped the noble Lord would re-consider them before he decided upon pressing them upon the consideration of the House. In his opinion, it would be far better to defer them until they had some further information upon the subject.

Lord Palmerston begged to set the hon. Baronet right with respect to the dispute between Lord Napier and the Chinese

Government. The dispute did not turn upon any question like the present, but as to the mode of communication between the British and the Chinese Governments —the former wishing to have a direct communication, and the latter refusing any intercourse, except, as under the old system, through the Hong merchants. He admitted, that it would be expedient to ascertain the views of the Chinese Government, before carrying a measure like the present into operation — Captain Elliott who was the only superintendent, gave it as his decided opinion, that the consent of the Chinese authorities, could be obtained. The right hon. Baronet had said, get the consent of the Chinese Government, and then come to Parliament. Did the right hon. Baronet really think that that would be the best course to adopt? Because when the Chinese Government was asked to consent, they would naturally inquire what the regulations were before they would decide. Now, the wish of the Government was, to obtain the consent of the Chinese Government to something specific, and that was all that was wanted.

Mr. C. Lushington trusted the noble Lord would accede to the excellent advice given him by the right hon. Baronet, as he felt convinced that it would be utterly useless to attempt to get the consent of the Chinese Government to abstract regulations.

Mr. Hawes withdrew his amendment.

The House then went into Committee on the bill.

On Clause one being proposed.

Mr. Hawes rose to move its omission. As far as he knew, no British merchants had given their assent to the measure, which was therefore to be considered as emanating exclusively from the Foreignoffice. To the establishment of a court for trial of offences by British subjects, there could be no objection; but he protested against a court's interfering with an independent power like China. And if such a course were taken, let it not be forgotten that interested parties would easily be found to whisper that to the Chinese authorities, and render them jealous of, and hostile to, British interests. He therefore moved, that the clause be omitted.

The Solicitor-General thought the omission of the clause would place the House in a novel situation. There were two thousand of her Majesty's subjects resident near Canton, and it was necessary there should be some means of settling the disputes which might arise. It was for I he benefit of those on the spot, that there should be some tribunal to which they might resort.

Viscount Palmerslon said, as the sense of the House appeared to be against the bill, he had no objection to postpone it until next Session.

Bill withdrawn, House resumed.

CustomsDuties.] Mr. P. Thomson moved the further consideration of the Report on the Customs Duties Bill.

Mr. Lascelles wished to call the attention of the House to certain facts connected with that measure. In 1834, the Customs' Bill contained clauses constituting certain towns as places for bonding corn; but, in the present bill those clauses were omitted.

Mr. Ashton Yates wished it to be distinctly understood, that the mercantile interests, did not acquiesce in the proposition.

Mr. A. Chapman said, it was impossible that bonded warehouses could be extended to inland places, with safety to the revenue.

Mr. Poulett Thomson said, that in the course of the Session a great many petitions had been presented, praying for the establishment of this system, and he should be prepared next year to submit a measure on this subject to the consideration of Parliament, and he believed that as it was founded on principles of justice, it would receive the sanction of the Legislature. He should propose a measure similar to that which he had introduced before, and which was complainedofas not going far enough, but which was as far as prudence would allow. He was astonished to hear from his hon. Friend an argument against the general principles of fairness and justice, founded on some miserable vested interest, which he alleged to exist in a particular instance.

Mr. Warburton particularly objected to the sixth clause of the bill, which enacted, that if foreign manufactures, purporting to be British, were introduced, they might be seized by any Custom-house officer in any port of the United Kingdom, or any British possession. Now, he proposed to amend that clause, first, by limiting its operation to the United King

dom, for he thought it would be unwise to let it be executed at the discretion of any petty Custom-house officer in some small island of the West Indies. And, he should also recommend that the clause should not come into operation till from and after the month of July, 1839. He considered the words, "or in any way purporting to be of British manufacture," went too far, as they were too indefinite. He was opposed to the principle of the clause altogether; but, thinking that its omission might not be agreed to, he would, in the first instance, move that the words " British possessions abroad," be omitted.

Mr. P. Thomson had no objection to some of the amendments, but he did not think the object of the clause would be answered if the words " British possessions" were left out. The object of the clause was a fair one. Complaints were made, that goods of our manufacture were forged abroad—that they were brought to this country, and from this country sent to the colonies, and sold there with our mark, by which not only was our trade diminished, but the character of that trade in those articles was seriously injured. He admitted, that it was necessary to take care that while these regulations were enforced, no injury should be done to their foreign trade. He could not, therefore, agree to exclude the British possessions. Much less inconvenience and injury would result from that course than from giving the parties a right of action. In his opinion, the authorities and the Customhouse officers in the British Colonies would be perfectly able to discharge the duties intrusted to them, and to exercise a sound discretion as to what articles were and what articles were not of British manufacture.

Mr. Warburton thought the clause so objectionable in principle, that he should persevere in his amendment.

The House divided on the original question. Ayes 39: Noes 8:—Majority 31.

List of the Ayes.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Duthamhad issued a proclamation stating', that certain persons had declared themselves guilty, and, therefore, the Governorgeneral, without bringing them to trial, without having any regular examination, had sentenced them himself to transportation to Bermuda, and declared that they should be put to death if they left the place of their banishment and again appeared in Canada. This, if carried into effect, would be gross murder. Neither the Governor-general nor any one else had the least right to pass any sentence, much less a sentence of a nature so highly penal, unless the parties had been previously tried. But it appeared, that these individuals, if they returned from transportation, were to be put to death. Now, what was the course adopted in this country? Why, if the party returned (and it was every day's practice), he could not be summarily put to death under the mandate of any person. It was only when the court, which had legal jurisdiction, ordered him to be put to death that execution could be inflicted on him. It was made a capital felony, by Act of Parliament, to return prematurely from transportation, after a man had been regularly tried, convicted, and sentenced. But, in this instance, the moment a man confessed himself guilty, he was, without any legal form having been gone through, sentenced to transportation, and subjected to death if he returned from it. But this was not By this proclamation or ordinance, Mr. Papineau and others, who had not confessed themselves guilty, who had made no admission of the kind, were outlawed, and it was proclaimed, that if they entered the territory of Canada, Upper or Lower, they were also to be put to death. There had been already a most outrageous tampering with the law, when 1,000/. was offered for evidence; but this was nothing when they looked to a proclamation by which the Governor-general pronounced that he was prepared, should circumstances arise, to commit a capital felony. His commission only allowed the Governor-general in Council to frame general laws—not to make a sudden regulation under which men were to be hanged. The whole proceeding was utterly at variance with the known, and just, and established law of this country.

Lord Ellcnborowjh rose to movo for a copy of the proclamation to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded,

Clause agreed to, report received.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, July 30, 1838.

Minuter. J Petitions presented. By the Earl of AberDeen, from the Island of Newfoundland, calling attention to the distracted state of that Colony.—Dy the Earl of Ripon, from Lincoln, to Enfranchise Church Property on just and equitable terms.—Hy the Bishop of Here, Eord, several, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry.—By the Earl of Camperdown, from Leith, against the Appropriation cf Municipal Funds uuder the Prisons (Scotland! Bill.—By Lord Brougham, from Chelmsford, complaining of certain Convicted Prisoners having been Liberated.—By the Duke of Wellington", several, from places in Yorkshire and elsewhere, for the repeal of the Beer Bill.—By Lord Sondes, from Stafford, Derby, Huneorn, and other places, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry by the Indian Government.

CanadaLoud Durham's ProclaMation.] Lord Brougham wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the announcement of a proclamation of ordinance which he had seen in the public papers, and which was of the greatest importance to the people of Canada. It was a proclamation agreed to by the Earl of Durham in council, and which, if the noble Earl presumed to carry into effect, he would be guilty of no less a crime than murder. So outrageous, so abominable a violation of the law, ought not, if it did exist, to be suffered to continue for an hour. He hoped, however, that no such proclamation had been issued. But the American papers had slated the fact, and they had also given the names of the parties appointed to act on the Special Council. As was the case with the former selection, no Canadian was named. He saw that the military secretary, the aidede camp, and the civil secretary, were enrolled, but no Canadian. Then Lord

« PreviousContinue »