THE RATIONALE OF THE OPIUM CLAIMS.

Benne Governments have successively displayed a mean injustice towards the mercantile public, only exceeded by the general ex- travagance with which they waste the public money. A placeman, who holds an office for many years without doing the duties though he receives a high salary, cannot be deprived of his place without being paid the value of all the future years that he might continue to receive public money for doing nothing. And if he has instituted a practice of extorting money from the public by any method not expressly illegal, be must be paid also for losing that opportunity. See what was done with some recent law changes. The usual re- lation of the public to Government is that of paying ; but some- times a part of the public has a claim on payment from the Go- vernment. In such cases the Government calls that part of the public "individuals," and thinks it meritorious to evade paying some portion of the just claim. Paying a great deal of money to officials, who might get it from the public without doing any thing for it, is called " keeping the public faith" : forcing " individuals " to accept less than their due, under the insolvent's threat that otherwise they shall have none at all, is called "saving the public money." The case of the Danish claims will occur to every one and the still pending case of the opium-compensation is even worse. It is true that the Danish case was not mixed up with an un- popular subject in this country, like that of the opium-trade. But, whatever the odium which may attach to the traffic in that drug, it cannot affect the contract entered into by the representative of the Government; who did not purchase the drug subject to de- ductions on account of its odium. Besides, the Indian Govern- ment itself was the producer and wholesale dealer in the drug : the British Parliament declared in 1832, that it was inexpedient to abandon so considerable a source of revenue as the opium-trade; and the British Government cannot affect therefore to pay the holders of the opium less for the goods which it dragged out of their hands because those goods have some kind of dislike enter- tained towards them by people in this country, who prefer intoxi- cating themselves with alcoholics rather than opiates. And in fact there is no such pretence. The opium trade, the opium war, and

all their moral considerations, are beside the question immediately at issue.

Early in 1639, the Chinese Government manifested an intention to seize the opium at Canton. The Hong merchants expressed

belief that the surrender of a comparatively small number of chests "would satisfy the exigency "; and they promised to become an-

swerable to the holders for even that small amount. The Chinese authorities, however, obtained possession of some merchants ; and subsequently Superintendent ELLIOT suffered himself, with many other persons, to fall into their bands. This is the point on which the whole question hinges. The Chinese would not release CHARLES ELLIOT and his companions until he had guaranteect that the whole of the opium in and near Canton should be sur- rendered. Now the whole of the opium which was afterwards sur- rendered was at that time beyond the reach of the Chinese autho- rities. This, then, was the posture of affairs—Eu.10r was in their power ; the opium without : they threatened destruction to the opium, or to ELLIOT; and ELLIOT made the very reasonable propo- sal to the opium-holders to surrender the opium, and ransom him. and their countrymen. We think that the step was not only natu- ral, but wise ; for had any thing happened to Captain ELLIOT it must greatly have complicated our dispute with China ; and as to the odium of the whole affair, a disaster at that juncture would have committed us to open war at the most equivocal part of the trans- action for both sides ; we fighting to retain the drug, the Chinese to grasp it by whatever means. Now, what was the contract ? The Superintendent issued a proclamation - - - - " enjoining and requiring, in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, all her Majesty's subjects then present its Canton, forthwith to make a surrender to him, for the service of her said Ma- jesty'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'; assigning as his reasons, 'paramount motives, affecting the safety of the lives and liberty of all the foreigners then present in Canton, and other very weighty causes ; and in the most full and unreserved manner holding him- self responsible for and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Governmeni; to all and each of her Majesty's subjects, surrendering the said British-owned opium into his hands, to be delivered over to the Chinese Government : spe- cially cautioning the aforementioned British subjects, that failing the surren- der of the said opium into his hands, at or before six o'clock on that day, he the said Chief Superintendent thereby declares her Majesty's Government wholly. free of all manner of responsibility or liability in respect of the said British- owned opium ' : and it was to be especially understood, that proof of British. property and value of all British opium surrendered to him agreeably to that notice should be determined upon principles and in a manner thereafter to be defined by her Majesty's Government." This proclamation involved both a threat and a promise,—a threat, that if the opium-holders did not comply with the demand, the Superintendent would shift responsibility from himself to them ; and a promise, to pay the value of the opium on some definite " prin- ciple." The opium-holders very justly ask, how could they disobey the injunction ? They beheld in Captain ELLIOT the successor of the East India Company's supercargoes, who had ample power I they saw in him the representative of the more powerful l3ritislv Government ; they saw him undertake the conduct of affairs at a juncture when their own lives, the property of themselves and others at a distance, the welfare of the empire, were at stake ; anti he said to them, "Do as I tell you ; leave all to me, and I will be answerable for all ; but do otherwise, and you shall be answerable.' Of course, under such circumstances, they implicitly obeyed. All the opium, 20,000 chests, was surrendered. They did not stir- render it to the Chinese, but to Captain ELLIOT' on his promise to pay for it, "in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Ma- jesty's Government." It remained for the Superintendent to pay for the opium : the question is, How much ? Here begins the extraordinary part of the Government's conduct. The opium-holders suggest a " princi. pie" for determining the value of the goods,—namely, the cost price, and certain interest and charges, taken at 17i per cent. It is difficult to suppose that Captain ELLIOT had not the same idea in his mind ; for, four days before the surrender of the opium, he required statements from British subjects of loss from property which they might be obliged to leave behind, "as far as may be practicable, upon invoice cost." The British Government itself

enforced that principle in the case of the British claims on the Brazilian Government, the latest case of the kind on record.

That plan has also the advantage of a fixed and definite

basis. Opium at Canton in March 1839 bore a fluctuating price : the measures taken by the Chinese Government had caused ink

artificial depression. The opium-holders, however, were not obliged to sell at once; and therefore the "market-price" at Can- ton, where there was no market, no more indicated the value of the opium to them, than the present price of corn in the British mar- ket indicates the value of bonded corn,—with this vast difference, that opium is so much less bulky an article in proportion to it price, that it can more easily be stored or shifted to convenient markets. If the Government were now to compel the owners of bonded corn in England to sell it, and then to pay them for what it would fetch now, the act would not be a tenth part so unjust.

It is impossible to find out what "principle" the Government people adopted to ascertain the value; but these facts appeant

Ministers point out as one important element in the calculation, the case in the Supreme Court of Calcutta, of RALISABUCH MULLICIL versus DE Souza and others. The defendants, for a commission- ' Correspondence, &e. respecting Compensation for the Opium surrendere& at Canton in 1839.

t Correspondence relative to the Actual Value of the Opium delivered up to the Chinese Authorities in 1839. Presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of her Majesty, 1843. of21,- per cent, guaranteed the safe return of the proceeds of sale of the opium belonging to the plaintiff and consigned to their agents at Canton : this opium formed a part of the gross quantity surren- slered ; and in place of pay ment, the defendants tendered the "‘ scrip," or Captain ELLIOT'S receipt for the amount of opium de- livered ; but the plaintiff refused it, and brought his action : the Supreme Court decided, first, that the price co igmally given for the opium should be taken as the test of the value ; but on a rehearing, that the price for the scrip should be the test, " as the defendants -were not insurers of the opium, but the proceeds"; the Court treating the value as a thing not proved, if proveable ; and the damages were Thus reduced from 865 rupees per chest to 400, the whole damages from 52,597 rupees to 27,000. The British Government desired the Government of India to cause " a full and searching inquiry to be instituted, at the earliest practicable period, into the actual value of each description of opium confiscated by the Chinese authorities in the months of March and April 1839"; and they called atten- tion to the case just mentioned. A similar application was made to Sir HENRY POTTINGER ; and Captain ELLIOT, returned from Canton, and then living in Cadogan Place, was desired to report on the subject. The Indian Government pronounced inquiry impracticable, but suggested the prices current in India just be- fore the news of Captain ELLIOT'S detention as the basis. From -the 4th April to the 9th May 1839, the average price at Cal- cutta and Bombay fell from about 60/. to 351.: the news of the detention reached Calcutta on the 13th May, and by the 2'7th May it had fallen to about 21/. 10s. Sir HENRY POTTINGER says that " it is absolutely impossible to arrive at any conclusive or satisfactory opinion as to the actual value"; but he thinks that the Lords of the Treasury, by the help of the prime cost and the case of RAMSABUCK Minaaex, might pronounce on a fair compensation. Captain Emaox, in Cadogan Place, and making himself agreeable to the Government who protected and patronized him, would take, not the invoice cost, but the rate fixed by the Supreme Court at Calcutta, as the minimum, and the lowest price refused for the lowest description of opium at Canton on the 5th March 1839 (before LIN'S first violent proclamation) as the maximum. The market, he says' was glutted at the time and likely to be more so. Finally, Government offer to the claim- ants, to divide among them the 6,000,000 dollars received under the Nankin treaty as opium-compensation In all this there is no trace of any thing like a definite " principle," either as to the " actual value" of the opium or even as to the precise thing for which compensation was to be given. As to the alleged glut of the market, that would have told less on the price of opium at Canton, than on the value of the next crop of opium in Captain ELLIOT, who forced a sale during a glut, was bound rather to make good the difference, than to take advantage of his own wrong in estimating the price which he pledged himself to pay. The case which is so much relied on was exceptional : in that case, the opium was consigned to Canton for imme- diate sale, at the current price ; whereas opium was usually con- signed to be sold at remunerating prices : and the Court took the price of scrip as a test of the probable proceeds, because those pro- ceeds, not the opium, the defendants had insured. Now Captain ELLIOT insured neither the opium nor the proceeds, but he did insure the "value" of the opium.

He was bound in equity to offer no less. The owners of the goods which he thus summarily seized were not there to assent. They were persons of all classes in India, including some who were so much injured by this locking up of their property that they have been driven to suicide in the desperation of their distress. Having seized goods in that peremptory manner, ELLIOT, and the Govern- ment in whose name he acted, were bound to place the owners in the position they occupied before the transaction. It remains to show the practical effect of the Government evasion. For 1,118f chests of opium Sir JAMSETJEE JEJEETILIOY and SODS actually paid as purchase-money, in India, an average price of 975 rupees or about 971. 10s. ; and with freight, insurance, and other usual charges, the invoice price averaged about 144/. 4s.: opium was ac- tually sold on the coast of China, at the time, at sums ranging from 500 to 800 dollars ; the dollar being worth about 43. 2d. : Captain ELLIOT states that the price of opium in Canton on the 22d April was 1,200 dollars : the lowest price per chest of the opium sold was there- fore about 102/.10s.: the price per chest offered by Government is 611. 10s. At the lowest rate mentioned above of actual sales, the value of the 20,000 chests surrendered would be 2,042,0001.: the money offered by Government is under 1,250,0001.! We have now stated all the main facts of the case; which will come before the House of Commons when they have to vote the opium-compensation out of the Consolidated Fund. A very few considerations will guide to a juster conclusion than that adopted by Mr. GOULBTIRN and Sir ROBERT PEEL. 1. Are the Government bound by the contract of Captain ELLIOT, or not? If not, they should not have continued him in his office for a day ; they should not have thrown their shield over him, and sent Mm out of the country in a higher representative capacity, but have delivered him over to his creditors. But they do not re- pudiate the contract : they accept it, in affecting to comply with it, and in demanding compensatiop from China to indemnify them- selves.

2. The contract adopted, they should fulfil it by ascertaining and paying the actual value on some "principle." All their authori- ties pronounce it impossible to ascertain the value; and suggest all sorts of "principles: T here is no proof that they adopted either of the principles so suggested; but they made a treaty with China

exacting a sort of ransom; and in the terms which they dictated, they chose to call 6,000,000 dollars out of 21,000,000 compensation for the opium : they can't find the value—they fix it arbitrarily, or by sonic kind of chaffering with the Imperial Commissioners, at 6,000,000 dollars in the gross; and then they turn round and say, that is to be the "actual value," which they were to ascertain on some "principle to be defined"!

3. The six millions of the Nankin treaty is not all that the Government have received : they also received six millions at Canton. What was that for ? Was it seized by way of reprisals, to pay for the opium ? Was it plunder, for prize-money ? Was it a contribution to the British revenue ? Government only declare they won't pay it, because the Chinese say in the treaty that they give "six millions" to pay for the opium. .Again, who made them say that ? On this point the Chinese themselves furnish some curious evidence. In a report from the three Imperial Commissioners on the requisitions of the British Plenipotentiary during the negotia- tions for the treaty, they say, that "the Showei Hang-e and his colleagues represented that the price of the opium had already been paid by the city of Canton, in 6,000,000 dollars" ; but "the Bar- barians exclaimed," that "the 6,000,000 dollars that had been paid did not amount to half of the prime cost, and there/re the defi- ciency must now be supplied." From this passage two things seem clear—that the British Plenipotentiary had the prime cost in his mind when framing the treaty ; and that the Chinese intended the Canton payment to go to account of the opium. If Government, therefore, are ruled by what passed between their Plenipotentiary and the Chinese, they must clearly hand over the 12,000,000 to the opium-claimants.

4. Moreover, the opium-holders did not make their contract with the Chinese Government, but with the British Government. The contract was, not that the British Government should get for the opium-surrenderers what they could squeeze out of China, but that they should themselves pay the actual "value." Suppose nothing had been obtained from China : is it pretended that then Captain &Litres promise to pay would have been void? No such absurd conclusion would be hazarded.

5. Part of the opium thus seized was grown by the Indian Government, and sold to the exporters at higher prices than those now offered. Thus Government stand, in respect of that opium, in this discreditable light : they sold the opium for so much ; they asked it back again, promising to pay its actual value ; and they now refuse to return the money which they received, and which should at least be taken as the minimum value. What would that be called in private life ?

The tyrannical manner in which the inadequate payment is forced on the acceptance of the claimants, is not the least discre- ditable feature of the case. Ministers will not be content with making a tender, and letting acceptance speak for itself; but they demand a quittance in full. Assigning no reasons, they choose to say, "We consider the owners of the opium entitled to neither more nor less than the six millions of dollars which the Emperor of China has agreed to pay for their indemnification." Acting for others, many of them reduced to the utmost straits, the English agents for the claimants reply, " We assent to receive six millions of dollars, under such conditions as her Majesty's Government may think proper to impose; but in the hope that Government, on the receipt of further information, may hereafter be induced to do full justice to the claimants." Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. GODLBURN remain inexorable : they " beg that it may be distinctly under- stood, that the proposed payment can only be made on its being accepted by the several parties in full satisfaction of their claims. " Having no alternative,' the claimants "accept it on the terms dictated"—as the unarmed traveller, who has " no alternative," surrenders his purse to highwaymen.

Had all this been done by the previous Ministers, we should have plenty of sneering at the "shabby Whigs," the "shuffling Whigs," the "Whig robbers," and so forth. It is only less bad than the United States "repudiation," inasmuch as the debt is not denied altogether, but only in part ; and a composition is rudely forced on the creditor. It was supposed that Sir ROBERT PEEL rested mainly on the rock of "public faith," and that his very tempera- ment and habits indisposed him to such breaches of decorum and common honesty. He will take advantages and practise evasions for "the nation," which to do for himself—to suppose an extravagant impossibility—would make his cheeks burn with shame. And it is possible now, precisely because he is the Minister of a great nation dealing with "individuals." Such is not the way to encourage that implicit confidence—that blind reliance on the faith of Government at periods of emergency.— which, in this country, "individuals" ought always to entertain.