HC Deb 17 March 1842 vol 61 cc759-97
Mr. Lindsay rose,

in pursuance of notice, to move— That the House will, upon Thursday, the 7th day of April next, resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the following address to her Majesty—that is to say,' That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the circumstances under which the British merchants and others, subjects of the British Crown, did on the 27th day of March, 1839, upon the requisition of Captain Elliott, superintendent of British trade in Canton, surrender to the said Captain Elliott, for the service of her Majesty's Government, 20,283 chests of opium, on the assurance of the said Captain Elliott that he on behalf of her Majesty's Government, held himself responsible in the fullest and most unreserved manner for the same, and further, that compensation for the injury sustained by her Majesty's subjects was the first of the demands made by her Majesty upon the government of China (to enforce which an expedition was sent out), and that a sum of money having now been received from the government of China, her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such British merchants and others, on account of their respective losses, to the extent of the sum received from the Chinese government, after deducting the amount awarded by her Majesty to the captors and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the same. The hon. Member said he had to request the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to state the case which had been intrusted to him as clearly and succinctly as it was in his power. The circumstances which had given rise to the case were well known to the House. It would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that a large quantity of opium, the property of British merchants, had been delivered to the superintendent of the British trade in China. It was not necessary that at the present time he should enter into the merits or demerits of the trade in opium. It was sufficient for his present argument, in the first place to prove that the legality of the trade in opium was clearly recognised and sanctioned by the British Government. To prove this he would read, if the House would allow him, a very short extract from the report of the committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1832, in which it was clearly acknowledged that the opium trade was a trade proper to be conducted. After having had all anomalies of the trade explained to them they came to the conclusion, on the complete information before them, That in the present state of the revenue of India it does not appear desirable to abandon so important a source of revenue as the opium trade, the duty on opium being one which falls principally on the foreign consumer, and which appears on the whole less liable to objection than any other which can be proposed. Another portion of the report was as follows— That it would be imprudent to rely on the opium monopoly as a permanent source of revenue, and that the time might probably not be very far distant when it might be desirable to substitute an export duty, and thus, by the increased production under a system of freedom, to endeavour to obtain some compensation for the loss of the monopoly profit. These words were of some importance to the present case, because it was clear that the crisis which arrived in China was chiefly the consequence of the increased production of British opium, which was occasioned by the sanction given to the trade by such authorities as that to which he had referred. His object in making his present address to the House was two- fold—first, to endeavour to prove that the honour and character of the country were involved in the full redemption of certain pledges give by Captain Elliott, on the guarantee of which the British merchants in China surrendered a vast quantity of opium; and, secondly, to endeavour to convince the House that it was desirable, on all grounds of justice and expediency, that those pledges should be redeemed. It was important to show that British subjects trading to China conceived Captain Elliott to be possessed of full authority, which they were bound to obey; and in order to do this he should next proceed to read the words of the act of Parliament and Order in Council granting this authority— By act 3rd. and 4th. William the 4th, his late Majesty was empowered, by commission or warrant under his sign manual, to appoint not exceeding three of his Majesty's subjects to be superintendents of the trade of British subjects to and from China, for the purpose of protecting and promoting such trade; and by any such order or orders, commission or commissions, as to his Majesty in Council should appear expedient and salutary, to give to the superintendents, or any of them, powers and authorities over and in respect of the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects within any part of the said dominions; and to make and issue directions and regulations touching the said trade and commerce, and for the Government of his Majesty's subjects within the said dominions; and to impose penalties, forfeitures, or imprisonments, for the breach of any such directions and regulations, to be inforced in such manner as in the said order or orders should be specified. He would allow that the act of Parliament was, perhaps, not very satisfactory, as it would presently appear that all that had been done by the Order in Council was to invest Captain Elliott with the powers held by the supercargo of the East India Company. In pursuance of this act of Parliament an order was made by his late Majesty in Council, on the 9th of December, 1833, by which it was ordered, That all the powers and authorities which on the 21st day of April, 1834, should by law be vested in the supercargoes of the East India Company, over and in respect of the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects at the port of Canton, should be, and the same were thereby vested in the superintendents for the time being appointed under and by virtue of the said act of Parliament. The authority of the East India Company's supercargo enabled them to deport from the country British subjects miscon- ducting themselves, to take away licences from ships, and to exercise general control over the trade of the company to China. So great was the impulse given by the East India Company to the opium trade with the view of increasing the revenue derived from it, that it at length extended over the whole coast of China, and established itself within the port of Canton, thereby greatly endangering the regular and legal trade. As a proof of the authority exercised by Captain Elliott, he would read to the House the following order, issued on the 18th of December, 1838, to which due obedience was paid:— December, 18, 1838—I, Charles Elliot, chief superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, moved by the urgent considerations immediately affecting the safety of the lives and properties of all her Majesty's subjects engaged in the trade of Canton, do hereby formally give notice and require, that all British owned schooners, cutters, and otherwise rigged small craft, either habitually or occasionally engaged in the illicit opium traffic within the Bocca Tigris, should proceed forth of the same within the space of three days from the date of these presents, and not return within the Bocca Tigris, being engaged in the said illicit opium traffic. The British subjects to whom these vessels belonged, obeyed the order of the superintendent, and retired out of the river. He need not enter into the particulars of the crisis produced at Canton, by the arrival of Commissioner Lin. Captain Elliot was not in Canton at the moment when the first arbitrary measures were taken, but bearing, that the lives of British subjects were in danger, he, with that frank courage and gallantry which distinguished his character—for so he must admit, however much he might differ from the gallant Officer on some points—immediately repaired to that city. They had heard a high authority in that House, who was borne out by the great name of the Duke of Wellington, declare, that Captain Elliot was perfectly justified in acting thus. On arriving at Canton, he found, that a great crisis had occurred, all the British subjects were in prison, and Captain Elliot immediately said, on the moment of his arrival, that he would take on himself the whole charge and responsibility of the measures to be taken. He would now read the public notice of Captain Elliot, on which the whole case rested, and the question for the House to decide would be, whether the country was or was not responsible for what Captain Elliot did on that occasion. The notice was addressed to British subjects in Canton, and was dated March 27, 1839:— I, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, presently forcibly detained in Canton by the provincial Government, together with all the merchants of my own, and the other foreign nations settled here, without supplies of food, deprived of our servants, and cut off from all intercourse with our respective countries (notwithstanding my own official demand to be set at liberty, so that I might act without restraint), have now received the commands of the High Commissioner, issued directly to me under the seal of the hon. officers, to deliver into his hands all the opium held by the people of my country. Now I, the said Chief Superintendent, thus constrained by paramount motives affecting the safety of the lives and liberty of all the foreigners here present in Canton, and by other very weighty causes, do hereby, in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, enjoin and require all her Majesty's subjects, now present in Canton, forthwith to make a surrender to me, for the service of her said Majesty's Government, to be delivered over to the Government of China, of all the opium belonging to them, or British opium under their respective control; and to hold the British ships and vessels engaged in the trade of opium subject to my immediate direction, and to forward to me without delay, a sealed list of all the British owned opium in their respective possession. And I, the said Chief Superintendent, do now, in the most full and unreserved manner, hold myself responsible for, and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, to all and each of her Majesty's subjects surrendering the said British Owned opium into my hands, to be delivered over to the Chinese Government. And I, the said Chief Superintendent, do further specially caution all her Majesty's subjects here present in Canton, owners of or charged with the management of opium, the property of British subjects, that failing the surrender of the said opium into my hands, at or before six o,clock, this day, I, the said Chief Superintendent hereby declare her Majesty's Government wholly free of all manner of responsibility or liability in respect of the said British owned opium. And it is specially to be understood, that proof of British property and value of all British opium surrendered to me agreeably to this notice shall be determined upon principles in a manner hereafter to be defined by her Majesty's Government. Given under my hand and seal of office at Canton, in China, this 27th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1839, at 6 of the clock in the morning. CHARLES ELLIOT, Chief Superintendent of the Trade of British subjects in China. It would be seen, from what he had read, that Captain Elliot enjoined British subjects in China to deliver up their property for the service of the Government of Great Britain. He would at once grant that the Chinese Government would have been justified in seizing all the opium on the coast of China, if they had been able to do so. But they had not done so; they had not dared to attempt it. The opium surrendered to Captain Elliot was entirely out of the power of the Chinese, and a large portion of it had already been ordered away from China, and was sailing down the Chinese seas to Singapore. At the urgent request, of the superintendent it was brought back again, in order to be delivered to him. He would not maintain, that the country was responsible for every act which might be done by a foreign Minister in a distant country, because some of his acts might be so injudicious and erroneous, that the country would be quite justified in repudiating them, especially if they involved anything derogatory to the character of the country. But when any acts Were done by a foreign Minister for the purpose of forwarding a series of great political events, and when the Government of the country approved generally of their scope and tenour, it was impossible, with any regard to the honour of the country, to repudiate a certain portion of them. Did the late Government, then, disapprove of the scope and tenour of Captain Elliott's proceedings? Far from it. They approved of them most highly, nay more, the Duke of Wellington, in the other House, expressed his general approbation of them. The Home Government immediately raised him to the dignity of plenipotentiary, and empowered him to carry on negotiations of the highest consequence with the empire of China. With regard to the sums of money that had been obtained by her Majesty's Government from the Chinese authorities, he would read an extract from the letter of Captain Elliot to the Earl of Aberdeen, printed in return to an order o the House of Commons:— The definite political purposes in view at the moment, were to break up the large contingent force from the other provinces assembled at Canton, to destroy the formidable aggressive preparation of the last two months, and to tame the spirit and cripple the resources of the Government, by dismissing the imperial commissioners, and levying a contribution on the treasury in part satisfaction of the heavy demands of her Majesty's Government … In this situation of affairs, I was enable to conclude a convention with the local authorities, by which the imperial commissioners were subjected to the disgrace of forced departure from the city; the troops from the other provinces were constrained to evacuate in the sight of our own force without banners displayed (a sign of humiliation in China); 6,000,000 dollars were recovered from the imperial treasury in diminution of the just claims of her Majesty's Government; a further sum of more than 80,000l. has been paid in compensation of the losses occasioned by the destruction of the factories, and certain previous violence committed by the government of Canton; and we were left in a situation forthwith to withdraw the whole armament from the dangerous effect of the river service upon the health of the force, for movement to the northward. This fact ought to be taken in connexion with the statement of the noble Lord, the late Leader of the House of Commons (Lord J. Russell), relative to the object of the Chinese expedition. The noble Lord was asked, what was the object of these preparations? The answer was, that In the first place they were to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's superintendent and her Majesty's subjects by the Chinese government; and in the second place, they were to obtain for the merchants trading with China indemnification for the loss of their property incurred by threats of violence offered by persons under the direction of the Chinese government.

With reference to the compensation granted to persons who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures of the Chinese, he would take this opportunity of directing the attention of Government to the claim of Joseph Coolidge, an American citizen, which, from the singularity of the circumstances attending it, and the exorbitant amount of it, had excited much curiosity. It was as follows:—

Dollars.
Office furniture 1,610
Mouse furniture 4,570
Wardrobe 1,800
Comprador's and servant's effects 1,300
Books 400
Cow and Dog 250
Some item not remembered by us 300
10,260
Add 100 per cent, for inconvenience 10,260
Loss of office-books 5,000
Loss of private-books 1,000
Repairs of the factory 2,000
Cash taken from the Treasury, about 5,100
Making a sum total of 33,710,44
He should be glad to know on what the claims of this gentleman, the amount of which, it appeared from the return of the compensation money, was immediately paid over to him, consisted? This person had obtained 100 per cent, upon the value of his cow and dog, and the article not remembered by him. British subjects were deprived of their property, while the extravagant claim of this American citizen was paid in full. He had now concluded the first branch of his argument, and would proceed to make a few remarks on the question of the political expediency of granting compensation to these parties; with this view, he would read a few extracts from the report of the select committee appointed to investigate the grievances complained of in the petition of merchants interested in the China trade, presented on the 24th of March, 1840. He, believed, that the first object of the appointment of a committee to inquire into these embarrassing and difficult points was, that they might give a clear and definite opinion on the merits or demerits of the claims. The committee collected together a vast deal of information, but they expressed no opinion, and he could not but think that there must have been a feeling in their minds that it would be a difficult matter to give an opinion militating against the claims. Out of the 20,283 chests of opium surrendered to the Chinese, five-sixths or four-fifths belonged to native merchants of India; and he would read a letter, written by a native merchant, and which was produced in the evidence of Mr. Malcolmson. The letter was as follows:— The poor natives are not to be blamed for having traded in opium, but the East-India company, who have in every way fostered the trade, and are now drawing an immense revenue from the same. You will be surprised when we tell you, that notwithstanding all that has occurred, yesterday's Government gazette contained the usual annual proclamation for the granting of passes for the Malwa opium, and we learn from Calcutta that the supreme government intend to bring forward 15,000 chests of Patna and 7,500 chests of Benares opium, now ready in their godowns, and that none of the opium agencies are to be discontinued. We enclose for your perusal an extract on this subject:—'The Indian government have taken no steps whatever to check the sale or growth of the drug, but continue to draw immense profits from a trade that they pretend to call contraband. Is it honourable, is it dignified, for a government to foster a trade that is contraband, and by which their subjects will ultimately be ruined? If the Home Government wish, there will be no difficulty in putting an entire stop to the trade, and thereby relieve the poor natives who easily fall into so seducing, but at the same time most dangerous trade. Does it not appear ridiculous that on the one hand Captain Elliot delivers up 20,000 chests, while on the other the Indian government are bringing forward for sale upwards of 40,000 chests more?' Another letter, dated Bombay, January 29, 1840, written by another native merchant, stated, If your good nation does not come forward, and openly give some assurance for the opium indemnity, you may depend that many respectable men will put an end to their lives. We have already seen two instances, and many more will occur in the interior, as men of high spirit and ancient family cannot bear the disgrace of appealing to the insolvent law. We are ourselves confident that the Government will ultimately redeem the pledge of their own officer, but what will be the use when the mischief is done. Nevertheless, a long time had now elapsed, and yet no relief had been afforded to these parties. It was stated in another letter from a native Bombay merchant, a man whose character and conduct stood so high that he had been judged fit to receive the honour of knighthood, and was the first native that obtained that distinction:— The question now rests between the two Governments of England and China, and it is for the former to determine what course to pursue for the recovery of the property surrendered by her Majesty's representative, whose pledge, we should consider, must be binding, as else all faith in the Government will be at an end. Our property has been peaceably surrendered for the service of our Sovereign, on the unreserved full pledge of her Majesty's superintendent that the "full value should be repaid to us, and, in our opinion, it now only remains to hasten forward the settlement of these uncontested claims. The letter concluded in the following terms:— Had the British Parliament disallowed the continuance to the company of the opium monopoly, and branded its name as contraband and immoral, then the question would have been materially altered, and every man would have traded on his own risk; but, by the course pursued, a pledge was given, which must be fulfilled, and which we and all others are entitled to reckon upon without a shadow of a doubt. We rest upon the honour and integrity of the British Government. He put it then to the House, would not the refusal of compensation shake the confidence of every native of India in the "honour and integrity of the British Go- vernment." He implored the House to consider on what was based the power by which this country ruled over the countless millions of India. It was the power of public opinion, and the confidence entertained by the natives that this country was prepared to act with perfect faith and honesty. What was it that had kept the native troops of India faithful in times of difficulty? It was the confidence reposed in the promises made by the Government of this country, whatever party might be in office. What induced the natives of India to come to our courts of justice, and feel a willingness to submit their cases to be judged by natives of a distant country, comparatively ignorant of the usages of their country? What was it, but a feeling of confidence, that by doing so, they would always obtain justice? They all had had recently to deplore the occurrence of a great disaster in India; but he apprehended that two such disasters would not be so fatal to the supremacy of England in that empire as any one act which should shake the confidence of its natives, in the "honour and integrity" of the British nation. There was not a district in India where many of the natives would not be reduced to poverty, unless the pledge given by Captain Elliott were fully and honourably redeemed; and the present was not a time for inflicting a blow on the character of this country. He must confess that he had not met with much encouragement on his application on this subject from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he now begged to appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, in his character of a liberal and high-minded statesman. He entreated the right hon. Gentlemen to look, in that capacity, at the question in all its bearings on the honour and character of this country, rather than to consider it as a mere money question. He begged also to appeal to the noble Lord who had lately presided over the foreign affairs of this country. He had great pleasure, not only in bearing his humble testimony to the noble Lord's urbanity in all official intercourse, which was a valuable quality in a Minister, but in acknowledging the value of one of his last official acts—the sending to China of that distinguished officer, Sir H. Pottinger, who, he believed was admirably fitted to bring affairs to a settlement on a proper and honourable basis. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the motion which he had read at the commencement of his speech.

Sir G. Staunton

seconded the motion. He said, that having taken a deep interest in the passing events in China, and having formed a decided opinion on the question submitted to the House, he thought he should not be discharging his duty if he did not endeavour to state the grounds on which that opinion was founded. If he had any bias or prejudice on the subject, previous to investigating the matter, it was adverse rather than otherwise to the claims of those parties. When he had the honour of holding office in China, he never, directly or indirectly, gave support or encouragement to the opium trade. But he could not hesitate to express his opinion, that no abstract view which might be taken of the policy of encouraging or discouraging that trade ought to deter the House of Commons from doing justice to those British merchants who had received a sort of sanction in carrying it on. The warmest opponents of the opium trade might take an example from the course pursued by the British Parliament on the great question of slave emancipation. Those who most strongly condemned the system of slavery, did not shrink from discharging the obligation by which, under the then state of things, they felt themselves to be bound to the slaveowners; and they gave them a compensation of not less than 20,000,000l. sterling. On a similar principle he advocated the granting of compensation to the owners of opium, and, more especially, the transferring into their hands of the instalment of money which had been received from China. But it would be an injustice to the opium trade to place it on the same footing as slavery. It was easy to denounce the trade as smuggling, and stigmatize opium as a poison; but enlightened statemen would not be carried away by such language. They would inquire whether or not it was founded in justice. With respect to the charge of smuggling, he must observe that that trade had not only been carried on with the connivance of the officers of the country into which the opium was imported, from the highest to the lowest station, but the article had even been conveyed in their own vessels. The trade, therefore, could not be fairly and justly called a smuggling trade. Mere paper prohibitions were not sufficient to give it that character. Then, with respect to the charge that opium was a poison, he might state that all medicines taken in excess were poisonous. Opium was a valuable medicine. It was a luxury, and no doubt a vicious luxury to consume it in excess; and then those consequences would ensue which excited so much horror; but he believed that nine-tenths of the people in China who smoked opium consumed it in moderate quantities, and were perfectly able at all times to perform their ordinary business. The opinion he had expressed with reference to the opium trade had been entertained by committees of both Houses of Parliament, and it was not to be supposed that if the trade did bear the odious character by some imputed to it, that the Legislature would not have openly prohibited it. On the 12th of May, 1840, the Duke of Wellington said,— I sat as a Member of a committee of the House of Lords, to inquire into this amongst other branches of trade, and I remember that evidence was received on the subject. It was a great object that this very trade in opium should be continued. Questions were put to witnesses whether trade could not be extended, but more particularly in this very branch, the trade of opium; and in the report of the committee of the House of Commons, it is particularly observed, that it was desirable that it should be continued. Really, then, under these circumstances, it is rather hard to come down upon these men, and tell them, 'You have been the cause of this war; you have been the cause of this great misfortune, and you shall therefore have no redress.' That is a course to which I for one never can be a party. The superintendents of trade acted upon such sentiments. This was the case under the short and disastrous administration of Lord Napier, the first superintendent. Mr. Davis, the second superintendent, continued to discharge his functions with skill and judgment, as might be expected from his long experience in China. He did not think it his duty to give an opinion upon, or to originate any interference with, the opium trade, but left it as he found it. Sir G. Robinson, however, went further. He considered the trade of importance and interest to the country, and gave it every assistance. He went and resided for a considerable time in the focus of the trade. On the 5th February, 1836, he said,— Smuggling carried on actually in the mandarin boats can hardly be termed such. Whenever her Majesty's Government direct us to prevent British vessels engaging in the traffic, we can enforce any order to that effect. Captain Elliot wrote, on the 27th July, 1836:— It has been a confusion of terms to call the opium trade a smuggling trade. It was formerly a prohibited trade, but no part of the trade of this country had the more active support of the local authorities. On the 10th of October,— We are in expectation of soon receiving the final orders from Pekin for the legalization of the opium trade. On the 2nd of February, 1837,— The imports of opium last year, on account of our merchants, amounted to nearly eighteen millions of dollars, being about one million above the whole value of the tea and silk exported during the same period. On the 30th of January, 1839,— The immense, and, it must be said, unfortunate increase of the supply during the last four years, and the continual drain of silver, have no doubt greatly alarmed the government. On the 6th of April,— Before the arrival of the high commissioner,, I had steadily considered the expediency of formally requiring all the British ships engaged in the opium trade to sail away from the coast of China; but the objections to that measure were very strong, and the result has proved that I took a sound view in refraining from it. It would have been impossible for Captain Elliot to have anticipated the extraordinary conduct of Commissioner Lin, and for which the Chinese government itself had furnished no precedent. The British merchants naturally considered the pledge which Captain Elliot gave to be conformable with the general tenor of his instructions. With reference to this point, he would make another citation from the very high authority to which he had already alluded, that of the Duke of Wellington. The noble Duke, speaking of Captain Elliot, said,— When he came to this extremity of starvation, when he and the whole population were distressed for subsistence, he prevailed on them to give up the opium, and, taking it in the name of her Majesty, he undertook to pay for that which he had thus got from them. But then he had no authority, by an Order in Council, to enable him to perform this service. He performed it at his own risk, and this country and her Majesty's Government owe him, I think, a debt of gratitude, that he did perform this service at his own risk: and by so doing he acted with a courage and self- devotion which few men would have the opportunity of showing, and probably, still fewer, if they had the opportunity, would have shown. Those words strongly expressed the Duke of Wellington's opinion that, in the extraordinary circumstances in which he happened to be placed, Captain Elliott had exercised a sound and wise discretion. If that were so, the claim of the merchants to indemnification must at once be admitted. He was unable to adduce a declaration from any Member of the late Government, similar to that of the Duke of Wellington; but the course they had pursued proved plainly that they concurred in the noble Duke's opinion of Captain Elliott's conduct. The late Government promoted Captain Elliott to a higher office, and entrusted him with the conduct of most difficult and important negotiations, and subsequently appointed him to another situation in a different part of the world, which appointment had been, if he were not misinformed, confirmed by the present Administration. All antecedent circumstances, therefore, as well as all consequent acts of the British Government, had made Captain Elliott's pledge binding upon the nation. It was a confirmation of that pledge that this country had fitted out an expedition to China, one of the objects of which was stated by a noble Lord, then a Member of the Government, to be the obtaining of satisfaction for the claims of the merchants who had given up their opium. Now, in his opinion, the six millions of dollars paid by the Chinese authorities at Canton ought to be considered as the first instalment of the payment of those claims. In the papers which had been laid before Parliament relative to the payment of the six millions of dollars, it appeared somewhat doubtful what was the precise object for which the money was paid; but certainly, the general tenour of the correspondence would seem to indicate that it was intended as an indemnification to the opium merchants. In Captain Elliott's letter to Viscount Palmerston he found the following passage:— I also received the sum of 17,750 taels, equal to 25,000 dollars, being in satisfaction of the loss occasioned by the destruction of the Spanish brig Bilbaino; the Spanish commissioner, Senor Halcon, having expressed his readiness to receive that sum, it was accepted. I am only enabled, my Lord, by this very hurried occasion to state to your Lordship briefly, that I was content to receive securities for 1,099,713 2–9 dollars, with a view to the relief of the Hong merchants from immediate pressure, at great inconvenience to the whole trade; for I found that the authorities had cast upon them more than a million of the payments, upon the pretext of duties and charges due to the government. I have taken a bond from the Kwang-Chow-Foo upon the behalf of the government, for the satisfaction of all losses occasioned by the destruction of the factories; and the Co-Hong have rendered themselves responsible for the pureness of the silver, in addition to my own personal declaration to the government (which will be repeated in writing, as soon as I have leisure), that it will be held responsible for any deficiency arising either from inferiority of standard, or short weight. So far as we have been able to judge, there is no room for representation upon the subject.

Captain Senhouse,

writing to Captain Elliott, said:— The articles themselves make no mention of the money being paid as a ransom for the town, nor is any mention made of these conditions being confined to the province of Kwangtung. On the contrary, it is well known that the Chinese authorities extended your Excellency's former declaration, that the English wanted nothing but trade on the old footing', to the further settlement of a definitive peace, although, in your Excellency's own understanding, the arrangement was limited to Canton; and the Commissioner Kwang in his private letter said, that you have stated that your nation wanted nothing but trade on the old footing, and invited you to commence negotiations for a definitive peace The sum to be given up being similar to the sum offered to be given for opium, and the introduction of the affair of the 'Bilbaino,' unite in inducing to an unprejudiced and uninformed person, that the arrangement is more intended for a general pacification, which would appear a very poor compensation for all the insults and injuries we have received, than an acknowledgment of the vanquished to the conqueror in the hour of victory. I therefore beg, for the information of my commander-in-chief and their Lordships of the Admiralty, to know whether the arrangement is decidedly a ransom for the city of Canton, to save it from the consequences of legal warfare; leaving out entirely the question of remuneration, compensation, and security for the future, so long mooted—or for other purpose. He had seen in the public papers—and he had every reason to believe it was authentic—the Chinese account of the matter, and it was surprising that that document was not comprised amongst the papers which had been submitted to Parliament by the Government. The document to which he alluded professed to be a translation of the report of the commander-in-chief of the Chinese forces, and it contained this passage:— I made inquiry from the barbarians; they all said that several millions of taels for the surrendered opium had not been yet paid, and, therefore, requested the sum of a million of taels in liquidation thereof, and then would immediately withdraw and retire outside the Bogue. To this I agreed. It appeared to him, therefore, that the evidence was in favour of the opinion that the money surrendered at Canton was paid in indemnification of the opium merchants. It was painful to allude to the misfortunes which had lately befallen us in India; but he could not avoid expressing his concurrence in the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend, that it was of peculiar importance at the present moment that we should not impair one of the main sources of our power in that country. The stability of our Indian empire depended, first, on the sense which the natives entertained of our power, and, secondly, in their confidence in our good faith and honour. Without exaggerating our recent misfortunes, or doubting for a moment that the energies of the country would enable us speedily to repair them, and place us in a prouder situation than that which we had previously occupied, he, nevertheless, must say it was of the utmost importance that nothing should occur at the present moment to shake the confidence which the people of India reposed in our good faith. It should be recollected that a large number of the natives of India would be absolutely ruined if they did not obtain indemnification for the losses they sustained. One or two of those unhappy persons had already committed suicide. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would decide that they should obtain the relief to which they were justly entitled.

Sir G. Larpent

said, that perceiving this opium discussion bad already produced a soporific effect upon the House, he would not long occupy its attention; but, at the same time, owing to the position which he occupied, and having been long connected with the China and East India trade, he felt that he could not give a silent vote upon this occasion. The question lay in a very narrow compass. His hon. Friend, the Mover, had stated the terms upon which Captain Elliott had induced the subjects of her Majesty to give up their property. Sufficient prominency, however, had not been given to the fact, that the merchants at Canton were the agents for persons at Bombay and other parts of India. He begged the House to consider the situation in which those merchants were placed. Captain Elliott issued the following public notice to British subjects. [The hon. Member again quoted the proclamation of March 27, 1839, quoted by Mr. Lindsay.] If the merchants had not surrendered their opium when thus urged to do so by the representative of her Majesty's Government, they would have been responsible for it to their principals in India. The merchants, therefore, acting in good faith, gave up their opium. What, subsequently, had been the conduct of the British Government towards Captain Elliott? The late Government was composed of his political friends, and he was sure they would not shrink from stating, that as far as they could express an opinion, they approved of Captain Elliott's conduct, and accepted the responsibility which that officer had assumed in their name. That being the case, the merchants were entitled to claim indemnification from the British Government. It was important to ascertain how far the present Government adopted the views of their predecessors with respect to this question. In all the communications which he had held with the late Government upon the subject, he had experienced the most marked attention, and a similar spirit had been evinced by the Earl of Aberdeen, with whom he had had an interview. The question being one which was deeply interesting to the natives of India, to whom the largest portion of the debt was due, he had felt that no exertion on his part ought to be wanting to bring the case fully before the Government, and for that purpose he had, and others had, sought and obtained an interview with the Earl of Aberdeen. He had taken a minute of what occurred at the interview, not for the purpose of binding the Ministers down to particular expressions, but in order to be able to communicate the general purport of his observations to the parties interested. That minute he would read to the House. A deputation, consisting of J. A. Smith, J. H. Palmer, G. Lyall, M.P. for the City, and chairman of the East India Company, and myself, waited on the Earl of Aberdeen, to endeavour to get the Government to apportion a part of the six million dollars taken from the Chinese towards the opium sufferers, represented by us, and truly so, as chiefly natives, Parsees, and others of Bombay and Calcutta. The Earl of Aberdeen received us very well, and stated that one of the acknowledged objects of the instructions to Elliott was the compensation for opium; but that, from an ambiguity in Elliott's despatches, it was not clear whether the money was for that object or as a ransom for Canton. He further observed, that the Government considered a part at least as droits of the Crown, and to be applied as usual to the captors, army and navy; that it was, however, only a first instalment, it being the object of the armament to get more from the Chinese: and that it would be within the discretion of Government to deal with the money, beyond what might be appropriated to the captors between the Government to pay expenses and the opium sufferers—the bills of Elliott for the bought opium having been paid. Finding the Earl of Aberdeen so well inclined, impressed him to get a portion of the six millions awarded to opium sufferers, and he admitted the reasonableness of our request, and promised to consult the Treasury, and recommended the compliance with our wishes to the Treasury. In consequence of what had fallen from the Earl of Aberdeen, letters had been written to India, informing the owners of the opium that his Lordship was about to recommend the Treasury to pay them a portion of the sum due. Under these circumstances it appeared to be absolutely imperative upon Parliament to give an assurance that those persons should receive immediate indemnification. A large sum had been paid by the Chinese at Canton, and he was willing that the captors should, in the first instance, be paid out of it, but the residue, he contended, ought to be immediately handed over to the opium merchants. He had cheerfully responded, as he believed almost every man in the House had done, to the appeal which the right hon. Baronet had recently made to the country, to enable the Government to surmount the financial difficulties which at present existed; but we had civil as well as military interests to provide for, and, in his opinion, it was as incumbent upon Parliament to maintain the honour and integrity of the country, as to uphold our fleets and armies. He trusted that the Members of the late Government would distinctly express their opinions on this occasion, and if they should declare that part of the money received at Canton ought to be paid to the opium merchants, he hoped the present Government would act in accordance with that opinion. No financial difficulties ought to prevent the Government from doing justice to the natives of India. Let it not be supposed that only a few large merchants were interested. No; the great mass of the native Indian traders, persons who were, on every account, entitled to the sympathy and protection of Parliament, were the principal sufferers. He had formerly heard hard names applied to persons engaged in the opium trade; but it should be recollected, that it was a trade recognised by the East India Company, who actually had established a board for the collection of the revenue arising from it. The statements made respecting the evils resulting from the use of opium were greatly exaggerated. He believed that it was more a question of finance than of morals: and that the observation of Commissioner Lin about the Sycee silver oozing out explained the grounds of the hostility of the Chinese government to the trade.

Sir C. Napier

observed, that Captain Elliott had been led frequently by his enterprising spirit to place himself in situations of danger without cause. As to the delivery of the opium, the authority of Captain Elliott ought not to have been deemed binding; and the other commissioner, then the principal, ought to have been applied to. But he strongly desired to urge the claims of the officers and men engaged in the capture of Canton, to whom he was sorry to find the paltry dole of a year's pay had been tendered—for the first time, he believed, since the two services had been in existence—it having always been the practice to give the captors a large share of treasure taken. He hoped, therefore, that whatever steps might be adopted in respect to the merchants, the claims of the officers and the men engaged in the capture would not be overlooked or disregarded.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, (Sir G. Larpent) that whatever might be the difficulties of the country, or whatever the amount of the demands made upon it by the public service, if he were convinced, that the claim now advanced was one which the honour of the country was pledged to discharge, he should be the last individual in the House to offer opposition to the demand. If he could not agree to the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) on this occasion, it was because he did not conceive, that the honour of the country had been pledged to make a payment, on account of the opium seized in China, out of the funds which had been recently placed at the disposal of the Government. The hon. Member who opened the discussion said, that he considered the honour of the country was distinctly pledged to meet those claims; but the hon. Gentleman, throughout the whole course of his speech, distinctly avoided referring to the point put forward in the Address — whether the honour of the country was pledged to make a payment out of the funds now at the disposal of the Crown. That was the question to which he should address himself, and upon which the House would have to decide. As to how far the honour of the Government was pledged by those who conducted the affairs of Government, when these matters were under consideration, he knew of no public declaration beyond what the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had made, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Lindsay), and in which he distinctly stated the objects for which the operations against China were conducted, and the arrangements which it would be desirable to make whenever those operations were brought to a conclusion. The noble Lord's expressions were recorded, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could speak to their accuracy, he being present at the time. They were as follows:— The hon. Gentleman has asked me, what are the objects of the preparations (that was with reference to the war in China), I can only state them very generally. In the first place, they are to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries that have been offered to her Majesty's Superintendent, and her Majesty's subjects, by the Chinese Government. In the second place, they are to obtain for the merchants trading with China an indemnification for the loss of their property, incurred by the violence offered by persons acting under the direction of the Chinese government. And, in the last place, they are to obtain security in future for the persons and property of the British subjects trading with China. That was the pledge which was given by the noble Lord, as the organ of the Government; and the House would now have to consider whether it imposed any obligations upon the country, out of the limited means derived—not from the Chinese Government, but merely from the ransom of a particular city in the Chinese empire, to make the payment which it was the object of the present motion to get made. The hon. Gentleman who opened the debate, and other hon. Gentlemen, had argued that Captain Elliot was the agent of the Government, that he was invested with great powers as Superintendent in China, that in his capacity of Superintendent, he made a demand upon certain British merchants, that they should surrender to the Chinese government a large property that had been consigned to them for disposal in China, and, that upon the surrender of that property, he gave them an assurance, that he took it on behalf of her Majesty's Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Sir C. Napier) had truly stated to the House the circumstances in which the parties stood at that moment. Our British merchants had been imprisoned; their property was in the power of the Chinese; they themselves were in prison; they were in the greatest fear for their lives; they were in apprehension, that the property they had with them would be seized by the Chinese. [" No, no."] He could shew, from the papers presented to Parliament, that they were in fear for their lives, and that they had great part of their property with them. In this situation of danger, or, at least, of difficulty. Captain Elliot, with feelings which did him honour as a professional man, seeing and believing, that these individuals were in a dangerous situation, went, at great risk to his own life, to ascertain the position in which these persons were placed, and share with them the risk of captivity and life. In this painful situation, the merchants succeeded in persuading Captain Eliot, that he was called upon and was bound to take the opium from them on behalf of the British Government. He admitted, that Captain Elliot did this, and that he did give a pledge on the part of the Government. Then it was argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the public officer, having given this assurance, and having given this pledge, the Government Were positively bound to abide by it, and that the refusal to sanction that pledge so given was, on the part of the Government, a violation of the good faith and honour of the country. In that argument he by no means agreed, and in saying this, he did not express his own opinion alone, and that of the Government now in power, but the opinion also of that Government which they had succeeded; for if Captain Elliot's engagements, made under the circumstances to which he had alluded, were so binding on the country, that they could not be departed from without a breach of faith, be would ask on what grounds it happened, that when the bills drawn on the Treasury were presented for acceptance they were protested, and the parties told, that those bills would not be honoured at maturity— that Parliament had not been advised to place money to meet these bills at the disposal of the Crown. If Captain Elliot's guarantee was sufficient to authorise the payment of any bills which it might be necessary for him to draw—the question WHS as open for decision at the time when those bills were protested, as it is now. But as to the pledge stated to have been given on this subject, by the noble Lord, which he had already stated to the House, was these equally obligatory. Those pledges were, that the country should obtain reparation for the injury which the country had sustained in the treatment of her Majesty's subjects— that compensation should be made to her Majesty's suffering subjects, and that the expenses consequent upon the expedition to China should be repaid to this country by the government of China. These were the objects for which the war in China was undertaken; and these were objects which those who were responsible for the war had to secure. The pledge of the noble Lord and of the then Government as to the indemnity to the opium holders, clearly had reference to the period when hostilities were to be terminated. The pledge was, that when hostilities terminated reparation should be made for the losses sustained by those who had been engaged in trading with China; but no pledge was given that the country was out of its own funds or funds which were applicable and liable for the purposes of the war first to make that payment to the merchants who were sufferers. The successes of our troops had placed us in a situation to control one of the cities of the Chinese empire; that city had consented to make a payment to the British power, in the shape of a ransom, in order to save the properties of the people. That sum did not come within the category of a compensation given by the Chinese government at the termination of hostilities to this country. No, it was an individual contribution of an individual place, and that money was no more available for the purposes of indemnity to the merchants, than any military contribution or seizure of stores or artillery made in the course of military operations. The matter stood in this situation, and in no other. What had been the cry of those who were deeply interested in those transactions which had taken place in China? What had they pressed upon the Government? Why they had pressed upon the Government, that the war should be prosecuted with vigour, with energy, and with firmness; that their claims might then be settled. That, he contended, was the tenor of the memorials of the merchants concerned. One of those memorials had been signed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, and the hon. Member for Chichester. That memorial urged, that the present military operations in China should be followed up with the greatest possible vigour, in order that the compensation required for the country and for themselves might be obtained, in the course of the war, a contribution in the nature of that derived from the city of Canton has been obtained, and the Government were now told that they were pledged to forbear applying it to carry on the operations of the war with vigour. He thought, that no man would say there had been anything like a breach of faith in the course which the Government had pursued. The engagement distinctly made to pay the merchants was one which was not to come into force till the termination of hostilities. Those hostilities had unfortunately not terminated; and on applying what had been obtained to the prosecution of this war, the Government were taking the most effective means of prosecuting it "with vigour, with energy, and with firmness," as had been recommended by the hon. Gentleman himself; and as they carried on the war without greatly adding to the burdens already borne by the people of this country, so we had a greater prospect to bring it to a successful termination. On these grounds he did not think it expedient to accede to the motion of his hon. Friend near him. The motion, moreover, was couched in terms which, if he were disposed to cavil at terms on a question where the debate was rather on principle, and not on words, he could not agree to. The tenor of this resolution was to assume that this money had been received from the Chinese government. Throughout the resolution the hon. Gentleman stated that the sum of money was received from China, and that to the extent of the sum so received the Mouse was bound to make good the compensation to the merchants. These were points on which his hon. Friend was mistaken as to the facts. The money was not received from the Chinese government. It was not a payment made by the government of China for the termination of the war now going on. It was a ransom paid for property captured in the progress of the war, available in the first instance for the remuneration of the captors, and applicable to carry on the operations of the war with vigour and effect. As regarded the ultimate satisfaction of the opium merchants, the House were not in a situation to decide. The Government had instituted inquiries as to what was the real value of the property which had been given up under the acts of Captain Elliott, he saw by papers which bad been laid before the House, that this opium was estimated at 1,200 dollars per chest—there was none valued lower than 500 dollars; this was an enormous amount to demand from China, before any step was taken to settle claims of this kind, it was indispensably necessary to know, beyond a doubt, what was the real value of opium at the moment this surrender took place. They should also know whether the merchants did not derive advantages from the additional value given to other parts of their property equivalent to the loss on that destroyed, or surrendered to Captain Elliott; and whether the price contracted for, whilst Captain Elliott was under duress, be the price at which compensation ought to be granted? He did not ask this information in order to shrink from any demand which might honestly be made upon that House; but he was sure the House would agree with him, that they were bound to take into consideration what was the value of the commodity surrendered, even if he admitted the principle that this country was bound to make restitution. And he must say, that circumstances had come to his knowledge which made him confident, that the amount of the claim made far exceeded the value which, under reasonable circumstances, could be considered right. He was not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman through the discussion as to the propriety of the opium trade, or to enter into the circumstances under which it was contended that that trade was immoral or moral. That was no part of the question before the House. The question at issue was, whether they should address the Crown, in order to enable the executive to make over to these dealers the whole of the money which had been received for the ransom of Canton, or whether they should abide by the pledge of the former Government to prosecute with vigour the operations against China until we should arrive at a settlement,—that settlement being indemnity for the charge and expense of our expedition against the Chinese empire, the indemnity of the opium owners to the amount to which they were entitled, and reparation for past injuries; and security for the future. These were the views which he was disposed to take upon this question; and, entertaining these views, it was impossible for him to support the motion of his hon. Friend.

Viscount Palmerston

said, that having been officially identified with this question, he presumed the House would not think it very unnatural that he should wish to express his opinion on the present occasion. He was far from thinking this a question of right, but he did think it might be one of discretion and policy. He was not prepared to say, that the claimants had any right, founded upon the pledge made by the late Government, upon which they could make out their case on the present occasion. Undoubtedly, the pledges given by the late Government were, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that her Majesty's Government would take the necessary steps to obtain from the government of China the value, whatever it might be, of the opium which those parties had been compelled to give up; and he was also prepared to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that the value of the opium remained yet to be ascertained. But he owned he thought that, as a question of discretion—of fair liberality, her Majesty's Government would be acting properly in acceding to the motion of the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Lindsay). It was perfectly true, that this money was not obtained by treaty from the government of China, and therefore was not (without the consent of Parliament) strictly applicable to the relief of these persons. He was perfectly aware, that by law the money must be paid into the consolidated fund, and that it would require a vote of that House to enable the Government to draw it out of the consolidated fund, and apply it to the relief of these parties. He was also aware, that if, upon the termination of the war, the Chinese government were to yield to the demands made upon them, and were to make over a sum of money for the liquidation of this peculiar claim, and an advance was now made to these merchants, the money so obtained hereafter from the Chinese government by treaty would have to be repaid to the consolidated fund, in satisfaction of the demand for the relief of these parties. When they (the late Government) were in office, applications were made to them more than once to recommend an advance out of the consolidated fund for the temporary relief of the claimants, with the understanding that, when the amount to be advanced should be recovered from the government of China, it should be repaid into the consolidated fund. The late Government, however, declined to accede to this suggestion; they did not think it consistent with their public duty to recommend to Parliament to lay that burden upon the public, nor was it a proposition which they thought Parliament would entertain. But this case was different. There was now a sum recovered from the Chinese people by the operations of our forces on the Chinese station; and he thought it would be perfectly fair, as no additional burden would thereby be entailed upon the British nation, that this money should be applicable to the relief of those who were sufferers by the events out of which the war had arisen. It seemed to him, there was a wide distinction, in fact and in principle, between calling upon the Government to advance money out of the revenues of the country and applying as proposed the money obtained by the operations of war, those operations being carried on for the purpose of obtaining compensation and reparation for the injuries and losses which have been sustained. It was well known, that these parties were grievous sufferers. It might be perfectly true, that some of them might have obtained compensation by the increased price at which they afterwards sold opium in their subsequent transactions, but a large number of them had never had any subsequent dealings, and had therefore not received any compensation in increased prices, and therefore it was, he was of opinion, that if the late Government had been in office when this money was placed at the disposal of the British Government, he should have been inclined to recommend to Parliament the propriety of enabling the Government to apply the money provisionally, for the purpose of relieving the claims of parties from whom the opium was extorted. He would not go into those other topics which had been adverted to by those who had spoken in reference to those transactions which had placed this money at the disposal of the Government. He could not, however, himself, with the opinions which he entertained, conclude without again expressing a hope that her Majesty's Government, upon further consideration, would think that without any dereliction of duty, they might, by the measure proposed, relieve a great deal of individual distress. He trusted that our operations in China would be attended with that success which the right hon. Gentleman justly anticipated, and that the whole amount demanded from the Chinese government would in the end be obtained; and he considered that an advance of a temporary nature might in the mean time properly be made, by which many individuals would be saved from great and severe privations and losses.

Mr. M. Philips

observed, that many parties had been greatly aggrieved, and it was neither just nor expedient that they should be allowed to remain with their grievances unredressed. As there was now a large sum in the hands of the Government, he thought that it ought to be applied in doing justice to individuals who had suffered in consequence of giving way to the recommendation of Captain Elliott, acting on his responsibility as a public functionary. He wished to know, if the armament now operating against the Chinese did not prove successful, whether the present Government would hold themselves responsible for, and eventually make good, the losses which had been sustained? It was, he conceived, the duty of Great Britain to place her merchants in that high position which would not allow the Chinese people to think that the Government would for a moment hesitate to make good the losses of those merchants.

Sir G. Larpent

in explanation, said, that the value put upon the opium was not an improper value, for Captain Elliott in his certificate stated, that there was a distinct understanding, that the value should be determined in such manner as was hereafter to be defined by the Government. The merchants had throughout acted with strict bonâd fides, and nothing could be fairer than their conduct.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rose to say a few words in explanation. The hon. Member for Manchester had supposed him to have said, that he (Mr. Goulburn) had no fears as to the early termination of the war in China. He had not expressed such an opinion, though he had every reliance in the gallantry and enterprise of the officers and men who were engaged in China; but he had never undertaken to give an opinion upon the early termination of the war.

Mr. Jardine

was at a loss to see what claims the Government had, except those which were founded upon the claims of the merchants. If any similar cause arose in which the East India Company was concerned, there could be no doubt, that the tribunals of the country would at once settle the dispute. It was the poverty and not the will of the late Government which prevented their making compensation; but now the cupidity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer kept back the money. In his opinion nothing was clearer than that the merchants ought to be compensated before the expenses of the expedition were taken into consideration.

Mr. J. A. Smith

thought, that people ignorant of the forms of business in that House could come to no other conclusion than that this was a triumph of the strong over the weak. It was avowed, that an agent of Government had committed a certain act, and though that act had not been confirmed, it was evident, that if the Government of the day, when the expedition against China had been sent out, bad continued in power, the merchants would have been paid. But this the present Government, backed by a strong majority, refused to do. If he had rightly collected the meaning of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the merchants had nothing to expect, unless a sufficient sum could be collected from the Chinese government, not only to indemnify the merchants for their losses, but also for the costs incurred by the expedition. The costs, moreover, it appeared, were to be paid first. This was the first time in the history of this country, that it had been put forward, that one of the chief objects of a great military expedition was to obtain money to pay the costs of that expedition. The announcement of the Government of the day gave the merchants a right to expect, that the first object of the expedition would be to repair the losses incurred by British subjects, and in his opinion a departure from that rule would be a violation of the faith on which the expedition had been undertaken. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some remarks on the valuation of the opium that had been seized. It appeared to him most extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have indulged in any expressions against the claims of the opium merchants, without previous inquiry into the circumstances under which those claims were preferred. He hoped, that the time was not distant, when the conduct of the merchants would be made public in every particular. All he could say at the present moment was (and he spoke without the interest of one single farthing in the question), that from all he had seen and heard of the conduct of the gentlemen interested in the opium seized at Canton, it was impossible to conceive any thing more searching or satisfactory than the inquiry which they had courted upon the subject. He believed, that the conduct of those gentlemen was far beyond the reach of any insinuation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could throw out against them, and he could only express his sincere regret, that that right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to indulge in observations which, whatever the estimation in which they might be held in that House, might possibly be misunderstood elsewhere.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would be sorry if any observation had fallen from him calculated to give pain to the parties interested in this question. When he spoke of the value of the opium that had been seized, he spoke only of what must be obvious from the proceedings in the courts of India, where the amount of value awarded was infinitely less than the amount claimed.

Mr. J. A. Smith

explained the circumstances under which the award of the courts in India had been made.

Mr. C. Williams Wynn

with much difficulty, and only by the aid of the gentlemen near him, rose on his legs.

Mr. Blewitt

moved, that the right hon. Gentleman be allowed to speak sitting.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

assured the hon. Gentleman that such an indulgence was unnecessary. He had been reluctant to rise until he had ascertained the views of the late as well as of the present Government, upon this subject. He had no knowledge whatever upon the matter beyond what he had learnt from the papers printed for the information of the House, and from what he had heard within the walls of the House. He had had no intercourse whatever with any individual interested in the claim. Strictly speaking, perhaps the claim was not a legal one; but he thought it must be admitted to have much weight in equity. Whether Captain Elliott had power under the instructions derived from his Government to pledge the credit of the country was a question upon which much doubt had arisen; but this, at least, could not be disputed, that he was held forth to the Chinese and to the British merchants in India as the representative of the British Government at Canton. In that capacity he pledged the faith of the British Government for the value of a certain quantity of opium, which he (Mr. Wynn) understood, as well from the papers laid upon the Table as from the statements made in the House, was not at the time in the possession of the Chinese government, but which Captain Elliott caused to be removed from British vessels and placed in the custody of the Chinese commissioner. He could not help thinking that the British Government was committed by this act of its representative. As regarded the money paid under the convention, and the mode of applying which formed the subject matter of the present motion, it appeared that Captain Elliott in this particular also had acted as the representative of the British, and in the character of a British Minister. If, instead of negotiating, that 6,000,000 of dollars should be paid to the British Government, it had been agreed that compensation to that amount should be given to the British merchants whose property had been surrendered, there would be no doubt that the merchants would have a priority of claim before all other persons. As the matter stood the money had been paid into the consolidated fund, and to that fund no doubt it legally and strictly belonged. The claims of the troops and seamen engaged in the service upon a sum of money so obtained could not be disputed. It was due to them in the same way as salvage was due to those who saved property from shipwreck. The troops and seamen had the first claim upon the money, and he highly approved of giving them, as they had received some part of the money. Then arose the ques- tion as to the appropriation of the remainder, whether it should be applied to the expenses of the expedition engaged in the prosecution of hostilities against China, or to the liquidation of the losses sustained by the merchants, whose property had been seized. It appeared to him that the settlement of the claims of the latter was rather a question of time than of right. No one, he apprehended, would dispute the right. The point to be determined was, whether they should be indemnified for their losses now, or at the termination of the war. In a strict legal sense, it might be doubtful whether they could put forward a claim to be paid at the first moment; but he certainly wished that some advance could be made to them. He owned that he felt a strong interest for the merchants of India; and he thought it of great importance—their property having been surrendered at the instance of the British superintendent, and with the distinct understanding that they should be indemnified for their losses—that the compensation to which they were equitably entitled should not appear to be unnecessarily delayed. He would rather that the motion now before the House should not be pressed to a division, but that the subject should be left to the further consideration of her Majesty's Ministers, who, he hoped, would take an early opportunity of paying to the merchants a part of their compensation, with an assurance that the remainder should follow as soon as the war was closed.

Sir R. Peel

could have no other motive for taking any part in the debate than an anxiety to show the House that the Government were most desirous to do that which was just to the parties who were claimants, on the one hand, and, on the other, to do justice to that other party whose interest in such discussions as that before the House were ever neglected—the people of England. There were ever too many in that House like his hon. Friend, who looked too favourably upon the case of claimants such as those whose case was under discussion; but he trusted that there was a considerable majority in that House not interested in the opium claims, and whose constituents were unconnected with them, who might form their judgments upon the subject coolly and dispassionately. The question was, was it right, that having realised a certain sum on account of the ransom of a city, it should be applied for the liquidation of claims for opium, supplied on an emergency, or applied to the due prosecution of the war, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction and compensation for that opium? The principles on which that war was conducted—the objects with which it had been begun—had been declared by the late Government. They were fully declared in a speech made by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Palmerston), who being asked with what objects the war had been undertaken, made answer, The hon. Gentleman asks me what are the objects are the preparations making for the China expedition? I will answer the hon. Gentleman very generally. In the first place, it is undertaken in order to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's superintendent, and her Majesty's subjects by the Chinese government; in the second place, to obtain redress for breaking the treaty, and indemnification for the loss of property sustained by her Majesty's subjects in China; and, in the last place, to obtain security for the future for the persons and property of her Majesty's subjects resident in or trading with China. In the first place it was to obtain redress for insults and injuries, not for compensation for the opium. If the House were of opinion that compensation for the opium was due in the first instance, why not vote the whole of the money necessary? Why not vote 1500,000l. or 2,000,000l. due to the merchants, and trust to the success of future operations for its repayment to the exchequer. If they were to apply or appropriate money received as the ransom of a city to the indemnification of these losses, on the same principle why not apply the credit of the Treasury—a treasury which was now empty? Surely if they applied the principle which his right hon. Friend had been contending for, it would be equally just to vote the whole sum, and trust to the success of our future hostilities for its repayment to the Treasury the cases were parallel, and rested on the same grounds. Were the Government to follow the advice given by his right hon. Friend, were they to appropriate the money received for the ransom of Canton to repay part of the losses of these merchants, then they ought to follow it up by taking it upon the Government, or rather to make the British people pay the whole indemnification to the merchants; and if the arms of her Majesty failed, which was what he could not for a moment believe possible, but supposing we failed to obtain full compensation, then the loss was to fall upon the British people. That was one point that he hoped the House would bear in mind on coming to a decision upon the motion of his hon. Friend. It had been said that Captain Elliott had pledged the Government to compensation; but did the House forget that the Government, under whose instructions he was acting, never admitted that responsibility; that they repudiated the whole transaction, and that they refused to honour the bills he drew upon them. There was no doubt the merchants acted under an impression that the superintendent was warranted in demanding the delivery of the opium, for what said Captain Thackery, who was one of the sufferers. In his evidence he said— The morning I left China I saw Captain Elliott. I then got his receipt from him, and he then stated to me,' You will get your property returned to you as soon as you arrive in England.' I said, 'I hope it will be so.' He said, 'No doubt about it.' I said, "I conceived there would be no loss to the Government.' He said, 'In fact, we could be paid for it now if we liked.' 'Q. He held; out to you the expectation of receiving the money for your opium immediately upon your arrival here?—A positive expectation. There was no doubt Captain Elliott thought he was acting under his instructions, but the Government who gave him those instructions had never recognised his authority in the matter. They refused to pay his bills, and said the source of payment was to make the Chinese government responsible for the payment of the opium. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jardine) had said the superintendent, Captain Elliott, did not act under any sort of restraint; that he was a free agent, and at no one moment in danger of his life; that, in fact, he was not acting under any durance in that engagement. Now, what said Captain Elliott of the compulsion under which he was acting. I, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, presently forcibly detained in Canton by the provincial Government, together with all the merchants of my own and the other foreign nations settled here, without supplies of food, deprived of our servants, and cut off from all intercourse with our respective countries (notwithstanding my own official demand to be set at liberty, so that I might act without restraint) have now received the commands of the High Commissioner, issued directly to me, under the seals of the hon. officers, to deliver over into his hands all the opium held by the people of my Country. Now I, the said Chief Superintend- ent thus constrained from paramount motives, affecting the safety of the lives and liberty of all the foreigners here present in Canton, and by other very weighty causes, do hereby, in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, enjoin and require all her Majesty's subjects now present in Canton, forthwith to make a surrender to me for the service, &c. That was the nature of the restraint under which he acted in demanding the delivery up of the opium. Now, what was the point in issue between them? The Government did not refuse to recognise the claims of the dealers in opium. They did not refuse compensation. Not at all; but they said, there ought to be a full inquiry into the whole of the claims. [Mr. Lindsay: The parties are most anxious to have a full inquiry.] They were anxious to have an inquiry, but they wanted to have the money first. They said, "Let us have an inquiry, but let us have an instalment now." But it appeared to him, that it would be a more regular proceeding to admit the claim conditionally, to institute an inquiry, and pay the money afterwards. The cost of the expedition to China had been 1,500,000l. already: he estimated, that 1,000,000l. more would be required for the present year. The war would be prosecuted with the utmost vigour in order to bring it to a speedy termination. They happened to have got most unexpectedly the ransom of a city; the question was whether it was to be applied to the vigorous prosecution of the war, or to the indemnification of the parties whose opium had been given up to the Chinese Government. If it were admitted as he believed it was by all, that the claim for indemnification was upon the Chinese Government, then, he thought, it would be better, that the money should be applied to an earnest and vigorous prosecution of the war, so that it might be brought to as speedy a conclusion as possible, and that the whole sum might be recovered. If they were determined to adopt a different course, then it would be necessary for them to vote another million to satisfy the claims—it would be absolutely necessary to do so whatever the financial difficulties might be—theymust take another 600,000l. to add to it, out of an already impoverished Exchequer, and thereby add to their already large deficiency, and trust for the recovery of so large a sum to the future success of our arms. On the other hand, if they were of opinion, that the inquiries into the claims ought first to be completed, then the money would be employed in obtaining as speedy a termination of the war as possible, by which means compensation might be got at an early period. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of a strong and a weak party; in such discussions the weak party was the people of the country. There was always great sympathy shown with claimants of the description then before the House, as was shown by the discussion on the Danish claims. The question, however, was a very simple one—should the money be applied to the promotion of the success of our arms, or should it be applied in the liquidation of the claims for opium? If the House sanctioned that principle, it appeared to him, that they would be bound to take upon themselves the payment of the whole compensation, without reference to the result of the operations in China—they would be bound to fulfil the promise made by the superintendent, and vote the whole sum from the public treasury. He did not consider that view to have been taken by the late Government, nor was the present Government disposed to approve it; and he must, therefore, in the performance of a public duty, refuse his assent to the motion of the hon. Gentleman.

Lord J. Russell

said, that the right hon. Baronet had stated very correctly the motives which had induced the late Government to undertake the expedition to China; its object was to resent insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's officers, and her Majesty's subjects, in that empire. If the terms which were originally proposed by her Majesty's representative had been acceded to by the Chinese, full satisfaction would have been afforded us; but as that reparation was refused, instructions were given for the attack of the defences on the Chinese coast; the island of Chusan and several towns were taken by our troops, and a portion of the Chinese forces were destroyed. That was the course to which we had been compelled to resort to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to us as a nation. But a question then arose as to whether those merchants, who by order of the British envoy, had delivered up opium to the Chinese government, were fairly entitled to claim a sum of money as compensation for their loss. If this were put forward as a legal claim, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly correct—it would be a claim going to the full extent of their losses. But it did not appear to him, that this claim could be so regarded; it was rather a claim upon the equity and liberality of the British Government. The ground on which the Government was under an obligation to compensate the merchants was, that the Government would by the war obtain payment for the opium which had been destroyed. If, at the termination of the war, the Government obtained restitution from the Chinese authorities, and then refused to meet the claim of the merchants, the injustice of such a proceeding would be generally admitted. But, in the course of the military operations which had taken place, a sum of money had been obtained from certain persons by our representative in China. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said, that this money was to be considered in the light of the ransom of a city in the power of our troops, and that it ought, therefore, to be applied to meet the expenses of future operations. He thought there was great force in the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Jardine) on this point. If the forces of her Majesty had attacked a certain town, and the Chinese commander had been permitted to retain that town, under specified conditions, on paying a sum of money to our generals or admirals, such a payment would have been properly and legitimately a ransom, and applicable to the expenses of the expedition. But in this case the payment was made to the civil negotiator—the representative of her Majesty—by Chinese commissioners, who were the very same commissioners to whom the opium had been originally surrendered. The Chinese officers assumed to act solely upon their own authority; they stated, that they were not authorised by the Emperor to advance any claims, or to grant any demands, but they undertook, in their own name, to transact business with the British representative. These commissioners delivered a sum of money to Captain Elliot, and he thought, therefore, it could not be considered entirely in the light of a ransom. The right hon. Baronet had said, that if any payment in the nature of an indemnity was made, it ought to be for the full amount of loss, and that according to strict form such payment should not be made till the termination of the war. But it must be remembered, that the sum to which allusion had been made was obtained from the civil commissioners of the Emperor of China in the course of the war. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Pee!) had objected that, the real value of the opium surrendered had not been ascertained, and that it ought to be ascertained before a vote of money as compensation was made. Now, if there was any inclination to adopt a principle of concession upon this question, that it would affoad a conclusive objection to the motion before the House. If the Government were willing to consider whether any allowance or advance should be made to the merchants who claimed indemnity, and to ascertain the actual value of the opium upon which compensation could be required, that would at once answer the object of this motion. Though he thought that the latter part of the motion, pledging the Government to propose a vote to the full extent of the sum received from China, was more than Ministers could be expected to accede to, when the question came before committee; yet, as this was not a demand for a new expense, but a claim, he considered, founded in equity, he should, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) conceived the only way of obtaining his object, was by pressing this motion, feel it his duty to give his support to the proposition. If, however, the hon. Gentleman thought it probable, that this subject was likely hereafter to receive the favourable consideration of Government, he considered, that he ought not to press the motion to a division.

Mr. Lindsay

said, if her Majesty's Government would undertake to give the parties who claimed compensation an opportunity of fixing the value of the opium, and would afford any hope, that an advance would be made on account of indemnity, that would be perfectly satisfactory to him,

Sir R. Peel

said, the hon. Gentleman must exercise his own discretion as to the course he would pursue with regard to his motion. The Government had directed inquiries to be instituted in India for ascertaining the value of the opium which had been seized, but he could not pledge himself, that such inquiries should be prosecuted in this country, His hon. Friend must decide for himself, whether or not he would take the sense of the House on the question of applying the sum received for the ransom of Canton to the compensation of the owners of opium.

The House divided;-Ayes 37; Noes 87:—Majority 50.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Bannerman, A.
Aldam, W. Barclay, D.
Bowring, Dr. Morris, D
Brodie, W, B. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Buckley, E. O'Brien, W.S
Busfeild, W. Palmerston, Viscount
Chapman, B. Pechell, Capt.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Philips, M.
Duncan, G. Plumridge, Capt.
Duncombe, T. Pulsford, R.
Forster, M. Russell, Lord J.
Hatton, Capt. V. Scott, hon. F.
Hawes, B. Smith, A.
Hay, Sir A. L. Smith, J. A.
Holdsworth, J. Stuart, W. V.
Hutt, W. Wood, B.
Jardine, W. Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.
Johnstone, A. TELLERS.
Larpent, Sir G. de H. Lindsay, J. J.
Mangles, R. D. Staunton, Sir G.
List of the NOES.
Acton, Col. Hayes, Sir E.
Allix, J. P. Hodgson, R.
Arkwright, G. Hope, hon. C.
Ashley, Lord Hope, G. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Humphery, Aid.
Baillie, H. J. Jermyn, Earl
Baring, hon. W. B. Johnson, W. G.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Jones, Capt.
Bentinck, Lord G. Lawson, A.
Botfield, B. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Broadley, H. Lincoln, Earl of
Brotherton, J. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Burroughes, H. N. Mac Geachy, F. A.
Chute, W. L. W. Mainwaring, T.
Clerk, Sir G. Marshall, W.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Martyn, C. C.
Colville, C. R. Master, T. W. C.
Coote, Sir C. H. Miles, W.
Corry, right hon, H. Morgan, O,
Crawford, W. S. Mundy, E. M.
Crosse, T. B. Napier, Sir C.
Currie, R. Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Darner, hon. Col. Praed, W. T.
Darby, G. Pringle, A.
Dick, Q. Rae, right hon. Sir W.
Douglas, Sir H. Reade, W. M.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Drummond, H, H. Round, C. G.
Eaton, R, J. Sibthorp, Col,
Egerton, Sir P. Smollett, A.
Emlyn, Viscount Somerset, Lord G.
Follett, Sir W. W. Stanley, E.
Ffolliott, J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Fuller, A. E. Tennent, J. E.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Tollemache, J.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Vane, Lord H.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Vere, Sir C. B.
Greenall, P. Wakley.T.
Greene, T. Wood, Col. T.
Grimsditch, T. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Hamilton, W. J. Wyndham, Col. C. W.
Hamilton, Lord C. TELLERS.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Fremantle, Sir T.
Hardy, J. Baring, H.