§ Mr. Crawfordsaid, there were two petitions now lying before the House from certain persons interested either as owners or as representatives of owners, of a large portion of the opium, which in the month of March last year, had been placed at the disposal of Captain Elliot, the British superintendent at Canton, on a requisition made by that authority to the British merchants at that place; and it was now his intention, in pursuance of his notice, to move, that the subject of grievance set forth in those petitions should be referred to a Select Committee of this House. He understood it was not the intention of Government to oppose that Committee, and he should therefore not go at any length into the details of this question; but, considering the peculiar nature of the transaction, the magnitude of the interests involved in it, and its general importance with respect both to the property of the subject and the public revenue, he might perhaps be allowed to give a brief historical view of the manner in which this trade had been conducted. From the earliest period of communication between Bengal and China, a trade in opium had existed in Behar; and when that province passed under the sovereignty of the British Government it approached much to a monopoly. In the year 1786, when Lord Cornwallis was Governor-general, this subject was brought under the peculiar consideration of his Government, and a scheme, still in existence, was then deter- 7 mined on as to the manner in which the revenue should be raised on that article on exportation to a foreign country. From 1786 to 1796, it was introduced as theretofore on the payment of a fixed duty, but in that year an edict appeared in China, having for its object to discontinue the use of opium. It prohibited the importation of it into that country; but the edict was altogether inoperative in that respect. The quantity of opium introduced into China had not diminished, but had, on the contrary, increased from that time, and ships having opium on board proceeded to the usual anchorage for British ships, and the trade continued to be carried on with the connivance of the highest Chinese authorities, from the Viceroy himself down to the lowest mandarin. It was then suggested, that stricter measures should be taken to prevent the importation of opium, and in 1821 the ships discontinued forming their rendezvous at the usual place. In 1823, however, the traffic began to be carried on upon the eastern coast of China, where in the year 1829 it had become an established trade. It continued increasing to such an extent, that the quantity of opium imported, which was in 1819 only 4,000 chests, arose in 1839 to 27,000 chests. In 1836 the Chinese government took the matter into serious consideration, apparently with a view to put the trade down, and the question arose in the council at Pekin, whether the opium trade should be legalized under restrictions or prohibited altogether. It was by a majority of one voice in the council resolved to make the traffic illegal; more stringent measures were in consequence taken, and did not prove altogether ineffectual. In 1839 the commissioner, of whom so much had been heard, Commissioner Lin, was despatched to Canton, with extraordinary powers, which superseded all the other authorities there. The occurrences that had taken place since that period were too notorious to require any statement of them to be made to the House. It was well known, that Captain Elliot, having placed himself in the lion's mouth by going from Macao to Canton, had called upon the merchants to give up all their opium, which they had accordingly done, upon an agreement for indemnification being entered into with them by Captain Elliot, in the name of the British Government. This agreement had not been ratified by 8 Government. Now, he wished the House to consider what was the condition of the British merchants residing in Canton with reference to the authority of the superintendent. They believed, that they owed obedience to any order which the superintendent gave as the representative of the Government; they thought they had no choice in the matter, and the reason of this impression on their part was this, that the effect of the act passed in 1833 was to transfer to the chief superintendent all the powers and authorities previously exercised by the supercargoes of the East India Company. Now, before the passing of the act, British subjects could only trade with China, under the sanction of the East India Company, by virtue of licences annually granted, and they were called upon to obey every order issued by the supercargoes. It was not, therefore, unreasonable for those merchants to suppose themselves bound to offer the same obedience to the superintendent after the act had passed. As no opposition was offered to his motion, he should not trouble the House with any further observations at present. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the petition from the proprietors of opium delivered up to Captain Elliot, the superintendent of the British trade in China, for the service of her Majesty's Government, be referred to a Select Committee.
§ Sir G. Stauntonrose to second the motion, and from the circumstance of his having passed a great part of his life, and held high and important offices in the country alluded to, he trusted the House would bear with him while he detained them for a short time, by entering rather more at length into the question than I otherwise might be prudent. He did not rise to express any opinion upon the validity of the transaction complained of in the petition. The House was not in a condition to determine that point. Still less did he rise to vindicate the opium trade carried on with China: on the contrary, he wished to see it put an end to by an Act of the Legislature, and the good feeling-of the people of this country. However, the magnitude of the claims made by the petitioners, and the valid and binding guarantee given by her Majesty's Superintendent of Trade at Canton—that officer being still in the employment of Government—he considered that it would be an act of gross injustice if these claims 9 were to be dismissed by a letter of six lines from the Secretary to the Treasury. He thought a full and fair inquiry should, injustice to all parties, be instituted, and he knew no better tribunal before which such an inquiry could take place than a Parliamentary Committee. There all parties would be heard, and the full circumstances of the case be laid open. While the East India Company's Charter existed, whenever a vessel arrived at China, notice was given to the commander that the importation of opium was prohibited by the Chinese government, and if it was attempted to smuggle any, the commander would be subjected to severe penalties, and the cargo would be liable to seizure. They were aware that the opium trade contributed to the revenue of India, but the agents of the Company thought it no part of their duty to protect or encourage any species of illicit trade. He was not prepared to say whether that course had been pursued in China during the remaining period of the Company's exclusive privileges, but it would appear, from the papers laid upon the table of the House, that a total change had taken place from the time her Majesty's Superintendents were sent out there. It would appear from these documents, that the opium trade was sanctioned and protected, and authorised by the representative of the British nation. There was at least so much of sanction, that it could not be regarded as a smuggling transaction. On the contrary, it had been spoken of by the authorities as favourable to the general commerce. At length the Chinese Government took more decided measures to suppress the traffic, and such conflicts arose, that the superintendent found it necessary to take measures to restrain it, and he issued a notice restraining it within certain limits. But the storm of Chinese indignation still grew blacker and blacker, the orders were more and more stringent to close the trade. Commissioner Lin arrived at Canton, and an order was issued directing all British vessels engaged in the traffic to quit the port; that was in September, 1839. And if that order had been enforced earlier, the House would not have been considering the losses of individuals, nor have to lament the stoppage of a valuable trade, neither would a struggle have ensued, which he (Sir G. Staunton) would not call unfortunate, for of its issue he felt confident in success, but which, nevertheless, 10 it would have been as well to avoid. Under all these circumstances, the petition would be justly entitled to serious consideration. As to the legality of Captain Elliot's order, he was not qualified to discuss it. But he would venture humbly to submit to the House, that if in the station which Captain Elliot occupied, he felt himself called upon, in order to prevent fatal collisions, to take the measures he had, and if he acted in conformity with his duty to procure the liberation of British subjects, he demanded the opium, and gave the guarantee, which he had done, then certainly those British merchants, who thereby sustained losses, should have compensation. He would not detain the House further. He begged to state, he did not entertain any hostile opinion against the expediency of claiming redress from the Chinese government, and he entirely concurred in the statement made the other night by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies.
§ Viscount Sandonhaving given notice that he would, on Thursday next, call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which opium was grown in India to be introduced into China, begged to say a few words on the present question. It was his intention to call upon the House in some shape or other to express a strong opinion, or at least to go into an inquiry, which he hoped would issue in the expression of a strong opinion, that it was highly improper for the East India Government any longer to continue the growth of opium for the market of China, and highly expedient for the British Government to lend its best endeavours to the Chinese authorities for the suppression of that mischievous and iniquitous traffic. But, as this matter was now about to be intrusted to a committee, he believed he should best consult the interests of the great question he had at heart by postponing for the present making any distinct motion on the subject, hoping that the result of this inquiry would lead to much further information, and prepare the House and the public for the conclusion to which he wished to bring them. He hoped the committee would institute a strict and searching investigation into the whole circumstance of the case. If he should be appointed a Member, he should go into the inquiry certainly without prejudice against those claims, thinking that a primâ facie case had been made out by those 11 who preferred them, but at the same time with a full determination to examine the whole subject, and an anxious desire, it possible, to discover some means of substituting for a precarious, discreditable, and iniquitous traffic a wholesome and legitimate trade with that vast and important empire. He hoped no measure of the Government would precipitate this country into a war with China of indefinite extent, being wholly unjustified by any proceedings on the part of China; indeed, he had strong doubts whether the Chinese authorities had not better grounds for making war upon us than we had to make war upon them. He should postpone his motion for the present, with the view of renewing it shortly after Easter, if this committee should then have reported.
§ Viscount Palmerstonrose merely to state, that his hon. Friend who introduced this subject was right in saying that no objection would be urged to the appointment of this committee; because, undoubtedly, Government must acknowledge that the subject was one into which it would be impossible with any appearance of fairness or justice to refuse inquiry before a committee of that House. He should, therefore, have followed the example of his hon. Friend who moved for the committee, by abstaining from entering at all into the wide field of observation laid open by the papers which had been laid on the table, but for an observation which had dropped from the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth. It appeared to be the opinion of his hon. Friend, that the superintendents who had the conduct of our commercial relations with China since the trade was thrown open had departed from the system pursued by the supercargoes with regard to the trade in opium, and that whereas the supercargoes did not encourage that trade, he conceived the superintendents had done so. Now, when his hon. Friend examined the papers more attentively, he would see that in this respect his impression was erroneous. The superintendents had followed exactly the same course which had been pursued by the supercargoes. Like the supercargoes, they knew the existence of the trade, for it was matter of public notoriety; but they had not even the same powers which the supercargoes had in order to put it down if ordered to do so, because the supercargoes had a certain authority; they could order any British subject who was 12 pursuing a trade discreditable or injurious to quit the Chinese waters, but the superintendents had no such power. He had explained this in a despatch which would be found at page 129 of these papers.
As a misconception on this point (the want of powers) might give rise to much embarrassment both to her Majesty's Government and to the superintendents personally, I have to state to you, for your guidance, that the clause of the Act 26 George 3rd, upon which you rest your opinion (namely, that the superintendents had certain powers over British subjects in China), was repealed by the 146th Clause of the Act 33 George 3rd, c". 52; and further, that the only power exercised by the supercargoes was that of removing unlicensed persons. But as no licence from his Majesty is now necessary to enable his Majesty's subjects to trade with or reside in China, such power of expulsion has altogether ceased to exist with respect to China.The superintendents, therefore, had no legal power whatever to compel any parties engaged in the opium trade to quit China; all they could do was, not to encourage or protect them, which he had given positive instructions that they should abstain from doing. His hon. Friend was, therefore, mistaken in supposing that any encouragement had been afforded by the superintendents to the trade. As to their not taking any active step to put a stop to it, his answer was, they could not by law take any. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the noble Lord opposite had not acted improperly in postponing his motion.
§ Sir G. Stauntonexplained. He had stated, that on the 11th of September, 1839, the British superintendent did prohibit the opium trade; if he had power to prohibit it then, he might have prohibited it before.
§ Motion agreed to.