THE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, on Monday, exposed the evils attending the trade in opium, and explained his view of the state of the law on the subject. He condemned the trade, as scandalous, injurious, and perilous ; as a trade that rendered peace, honour, quiet, impossible ; as a permanent injustice alike to India and China, and disgraceful to the national character of England. The question has two aspects—the territorial and the commercial. The territorial aspect is the levying a duty on all opium passing through the country ; the commercial aspect is the Government of India being the manufacturers and vendors of opium, like ordinary traders. Admitting the right of the Indian Government to levy a duty on opium passing through the country, he contended, citing passages from acts of Parliament in support of his view, that the Indian Government, which was prohibited from trading in 1833, acts illegally in preparing and selling opium with a view to its importation into China. It was on the point of legality that he wished to be satisfied; and he moved that two questions should be put to the Judges, intended to bring out She true construction of the act of 1833, and its bearing on the supplemental treaty with China. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the course proposed would be inconsistent with the ordinary principles of justice. The Judges are never consulted except with a view to some judicial business, or to guide the House in some pending or approaching legislation. But the Government will, upon ascertaining clearly and distinctly what are the facts as to the manufacture of opium, who are concerned in it, in what manner it is disposed of, and for what purpose, submit the question to the highest legal authorities they can properly consult—the Law-Officers of the Crown ; and with regard to the second question, which relates to the construction of a treaty, they will consult, in addition to the Law-Offieers of the Crown, the Queen's Advocate. If it were true that the East India Company had for years habitually violated the law, then every person so engaged would be liable to be indicted and punished. Could anything be more monstrous than to call on the House to prejudge a question involv'ing such consequences without hearing the parties. Lord Saerreserrev said, he did not intend to make a motion involving such consequences • and he was ready to withdraw it on the assurance that the opinion of theLaw-Officers of the Crown should be taken.
Earl GREY thonght that Lord Shaftesbury had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing his motion. But he objected to submitting such a question to the Law-Officers of the Crown. It is a matter far beyond the reach of lawyers, who would decide it on special-pleading and technicalities. The question is, whether the system now pursued is consistent with real justice and equity towards the Chinese, and with our treaty
obligations ? On that question he was not prepared to express an opinion ; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the East India Company is mixed up with transactions which it is difficult to justify on the prin-• eiples of right and wrong. Still it is not clear that the practice of vice can be prevented by direct legislation. While opium is a drug liable to abuse, it is a most important medicine. If its introduction cannot be prohibited, how can Government regulate the manner in which it shall be sold ? He could not see the difference between levying an importduty on opium and levying a revenue by means of a monopoly. At the same time the question remains—Have we or not, after the opium has passed from the hands of the Indian Government, encouraged smuggling. Our obligations, under the supplemental treaty, to abstain from everything calculated to encourage smuggling, are clear and positive. We are punishing the Chinese for a doubtful infraction of the treaty ; how shall we stand if it turn out that we on a point of vital importance have deliberately violated the terms and spirit of the treaty ? This is a matter that eons for inquiry, but not by the Law-Officers of the Crown, whose opinion will not be worth the paper it is written on. The subject should.
be considered by the Government on higher principles of policy andequity, and as it is connected with the general state of our relations with.. China.
In the course of his speech, Lord Grey noticed the announcement that a negotiator would be sent out to supersede Sir John Bowring. That announcement, although somewhat tardy, lie hailed with the greatest satisfaction; and he trusted that the person sent out would be instructed to ascertain what arc the best means of establishing peaceful relations with China on all questions. He repeated his condemnation of the proceedings. at Canton ; showed how they had interrupted the peaceful relations of ten years; drew a gloomy picture of the consequences,---war with the population of China, hitherto friendly to us ; an interruption of trade that would lead to the loss of upwards of a million of revenue on the tea-duty ; and a disturbance in our financial arrangements of the year, that would compel the Government either to check the diminution of expeuditure to which the country looked or to have recourse to a loan.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE favourably contrasted the effects of opium with those of the intoxicating drinks in common use in this country. The latter incite to crime ; opium incapacitates the person using it for the commission of crime. Opium is only pernicious when abused. Smug-. gling, although legally prohibited, is openly carried on, and it is for the Chinese, not for us, to prevent it. Ho argued strongly against prohibitory legislation on subjects of this kind. Earl GRANVILLE defended the course adopted by the Government from the attacks of Earl Grey. With regard to smuggling, Earl Grey assumed that tho British authorities regard the opium trade with feelings different from those that existed when he was Colonial Secretary. That ia an unfair assumption. If smuggling is encouraged, it is in direct opposition to the wishes and instructions of the Government.
Lord SHA.FTESBURY repeated his pledge to bring the subject forward. again.—Motion withdrawn.
Previous page
