OPIUM COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 2 April 1840)

§ Mr. J. A Smith
, in the absence of Mr. Crawford, moved that the committee on the surrender of Opium in China should consist of the following hon. Members:—Mr. Crawford, Lord Viscount Palmerston, Sir R. Peel, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Herbert, Sir G. Staunton, Mr. Cowper, Mr. R. Clive, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Hogg, Mr. J. Elliot, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Parker, Lord Viscount Sandon, Mr. Strutt, Sir W. Somerville, Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Horsman.

§ Viscount Sandon
did not think the constitution of the committee was such as would ensure an unbiassed consideration of the matter submitted to it. It included four members of the Government and two hon. Gentlemen who were nearly connected with Ministers, Besides, fifteen out of the twenty-one were chosen from the other side of the House. There were two names which he had expected to see upon the committee—he meant those of Lord G. Somerset and Mr. Gladstone.

§ Mr. J. A. Smith
said, that it had been wished to add the name of Lord G. Somerset, but Lord G. Somerset had expressed his wish not to serve on the committee.

§ Lord G. Somerset
said, it was certainly 431 true, that owing to his other engagements he had expressed his desire to see his name replaced by that of some other Member on his side of the House.

§ Sir R. Peel
wondered that the Government could not be contented with a smaller majority than that of three to one. But the fact was, that Ministers were so used to large majorities, that it was difficult to satisfy them. One would have thought nine to seven, or eight to seven, a very tolerable preponderance, but fifteen to six exceeded any limit which he ever heard of. He was anxious, for his own part, to be excused from serving on the committee on account of his engagements on the banking committee and others. He therefore hoped that his name would be withdrawn, and replaced by that of some hon. Member who would be able to give a more constant attendance than it would be possible for him to give.

§ Mr. J. A. Smith
said, some of the Members of the committee, although they sat on his side of the House, did not agree with the Government upon this subject.

§ Sir R. Peel
thought it somewhat unfair to infer that the six Members selected from the Opposition side of the House must oppose the Government upon this, which was not a party question.

§ Lord J. Russell
observed, that the objection was only good supposing this was a party question. The right hon. Baronet having stated, that it was not a party question disposed at once of his own objection.

§ Mr. Goulburn
strongly protested against the principle of giving such decided preponderance to one side of the House in a committee for the consideration of a most important national question, merely because, forsooth, it had not been made a party question.

§ Mr. Herries
warned the House against putting itself into the hands of a committee chosen under such circumstances. It was impossible not to feel that the ultimate decision of the question whether these claims should be satisfied at the expense of the people must be greatly influenced by the report of the select committee, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that the House should look narrowly to its composition. The hon. Member for Chichester said his opinion, and that of two other Gentlemen on the committee, was opposed on this subject to that of her 432 Majesty's Government. What were the opinions of the Government? He had no doubt there had been a great deal of communication between the hon. Gentleman and her Majesty's Government. They no doubt understood each other very well. The Government had refused to pay the claimants, but it was a very remarkable circumstance that after this refusal they had willingly, and without any debate, consented to this committee. This had very much the appearance of an understanding between two parties.

§ Sir H. Hardinge
ventured to predict, judging from the face of this committee, that it would be impossible to place any confidence in the report; and he, therefore, suggested the propriety of postponing its appointment till to-morrow, in order that time might be given to make some modification in it.