THE OPIUM-COMPOSITION.
THE House of Commons have awarded to the owners of the opium seized at Canton the dishonest composition proposed by Govern. ment ; the characteristic fidelity of the Commons probably making them reluctant to pass an implied censure on Ministers by insist- ing on doing justice. There are two points in the Government position which have a show of strength. The claimants demanded to be paid the real value of the opium, and suggested the in- voice-cost as a guide to the minimum value : but Government say that the real value was not ascertainable, and that the invoice-cost was no test— "This was a trade, they must bear in mind," said Mr. Goozarnst, "which was influenced chiefly by the character of the opposition it met with from the Chinese Government. if the Government ass very rigid in its efforts to pre- vent smuggling, the consequence was a rise in the price: if, on the other hand, its regulations were relaxed, more opium was introduced, and the price imme- diately fell. The real measure of value, therefore, was not the amount of profit which might be made by the enterprise, but the ability of the Chinese Govern- ment to obstruct the trade. • • • The late Mr. Jardine and Mr. Inglis, in the course of their evidence upon this point, both spoke of the trade as a gambling trade, fluctuating with every rumour and with every new rule of the empire. It was clear, therefore, that the invoiced price of articles in such a trade could be no criterion of real value."
The other point, much relied on by Sir ROBERT PEEL, was the fact that Government had given warning that they would not be answerable for losses incurred in prosecuting a contraband trade— "it is quite notorious that the growth of opium has been encouraged by the Government of India, and that that Government has derived a considerable revenue from the sale of it ; and yet, at the same time, distinct intimations have been given to the persons who carried on the trade on the coast of China, that if they violated the laws of the Chinese Government, the British Govern- ment could not interfere to redress any injury they might receive from lose, but that they must themselves be responsible for that loss. • • • On the 15th of June 1838, Lord Palmerston wrote to Captain Elliot—' As to the smuggling-trade in opium, which forms the subject of your despatches of No- vember and December 1837, I have to state, that her Majesty's Government cannot interfere for the purpose of enabling British subjects to violate the laws of any country to which they may trade. Any loss, therefore, which such persons may suffer in consequence of the more effectual execution of the Chi- nese laws with respect to this subject, must be borne by the parties who have brought the loss on themselves by their own acts.' Those were the express words of the late Minister for Foreign Affairs; intimating that there was a distinction between a traffic legalized by the Chinese Government, and which was in conformity with its laws, and a trade that was prohibited by those laws. Had there been an interference with the legal traffic of British subjects, in that case there would have been a claim on the British Government for redress ; but if the traffic was illegal and forbidden by the laws of China, then it is inti- mated by the noble Lord, that the parties so trading must themselves be re- sponsible for any loss, and that the British Government could not give them any guarantee."
These two arguments would be sufficient, but for one fact— that Government, by their officer, thrust themselves into the scrape and volunteered the responsibility which they had previously repudiated. Had they let the opium-trade alone, Lord PALMER- STON'S caveat would have stood good to this day,—although the Indian Government, like some pious procuress, vended the wares while it deprecated the sin. But they meddled—first to get the trade legalized ; then to get some kind of regulations agreed to ; and finally, Captain ELLIOT, their accredited officer, whose acts are cordially adopted by the existing Government, chose to incur the most sweeping responsibilities to both sides : the representative of a Government, one branch of which actually dealt in opium, he undertook to the Chinese that all the stock of the drug should be surrendered ; and as the representative of the Government at home, he obliged the holders of the opium, then beyond the reach of the Chinese, to deliver it up to him. Of course, Lord PALMERSTON, when he said that any loss to be suffered "in consequence of the more effectual execution of the Chinese laws," did not contemplate the execution of those laws by the in- tervention of a British officer ; and when he said that the loss "must be borne by those parties who have brought the loss on themselves," he did not mean that it must be borne by those parties when it was brought upon them by his own vicegerent. Captain ELLIOT'S demand for the surrender of the opium to himself, for the service of Government, quite superseded and cancelled Lord PALMERSTON'S warning, so far as the whole of that opium was con- cerned.
It might be difficult to ascertain the actual value of the opium.
The invoice-cost is the most precise method that has been suggested, but it is not essential to Captain ELLIOT'S bargain. Ministers say truly, that the method of ascertaining the value was reserved for the discretion of Government ; they say truly, that the value is difficult, if not impossible, to be ascertained: but their agent voluntarily pledged them to that difficult or impossible task ; and they do not redeem the pledge which they have not repudiated, by declaring in their discretion that they will not ascertain the value. They are not absolved from literally fulfilling the task, until they have proved that they have expended all possible diligence, labour, and time, to fulfil it in its literal terms : having done so without success, they would still be bound in honour to make such a liberal approximation as would in all probability indemnify the owners for the loss of that particular stock of opium. They did not under- take to pay what a jury would award, but to return the equivalent of the thing seized by their agent. The price of Captain Emacres "scrip," the very existence of which must have had a depressing effect on its own value, is not the value of the opium : Sir HENRY POTTINGER'S " opinion" is not the value, nor is Captain ELLIOT'S. In respect to part of the drug, that sold by the Indian Government, the refusal to pay the invoice-cost is inconsistent with that common kind of honesty in trade which the pettifogging retail-dealer who has false weights would not venture to commit : it is, as we have before said, precisely the case of the vender who having sold some goods and sent them home to the purchaser by the carrier, insists upon having them back again, and then refuses to return the money or pay the carriage.
No one would desire Government to insure opium-smugglers against loss iu a contraband and perilous trade, or to pay a fixed price for all opium that might be seized by the Chinese Govern- ment : but the opium was seized by Captain ELLIOT, and sur- rendered to him on the faith of certain promises ; Government adopt those promises in terms, but refuse performance. The re- ceipt in full which they have extorted from the owners for half the money, under pain of setting their claim at defiance, with all the power of the English Government, is no release in justice and honour ; and the day may come, should the national exchequer ever again be solvent, when an English Government may be ashamed to avail itself of a false receipt extorted by intimidation.
Previous page
