POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY NIGHT.
In their anxiety to "work much," the Commons began yesterday at noon ; but the moat critical discussion was the latest—that on the Opium- compensation about which they did not "say little." The subject, indeed, merited full investigation ; the wrong was to leave it till so late a day : but probably Government favoured a tardiness that would check debate as much as possible. The House having gone into Committee
of Supply, Sir GEORGE CLERK moved a vote of 1,281,0001. as compen- sation to the owners of opium under the 4th article of the treaty of peace with China. Mr. MaaamEs, followed by Mr. Li:sumac, contended that the amount proposed fell short of the true value of the opium seized at Canton : justice required that at least the invoice-cost should be repaid; and the influence of the British Government was at stake, as two- thirds of the opium belonged to native Indian merchants, who had connexions all over the Eastern world. Further inquiry into the value of the drug should at least be permitted. [The main arguments advanced
1?3, these and subsequent speakers have already been made familiar to the readers of the Spectator, by a paper in the number for June 10th.] The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER argued that Government did maintain faith. The following are the principal points now put forth as the Government case— When the opium was surrendered by Captain Elliot, so far from undertaking to pay the merchants for that opium at its invoice price, he confined the un- dertaking for payments at invoice prices to the other descriptions of goods which they were compelled to abandon, leaving the amount which was to be paid for the opium to the discretion of the Government at home. The traffic was subject to all the fluctuations of a gambling trade, and the invoice price was no Just measure of value ; but the price at which Captain Elliot's scrip receipts sold was a tolerably fair test, and that price was only about 35/. per chest; whereas the compensation now proposed was 64/. Sir Henry Pottin- ger thought the 6,000,000 dollars an adequate compensation; and this was also the opinion expressed by the Chinese, who were good judges of the value in their own market.
Sir THosias WILDE made a vigorous speech; the gist of which was,
that Government were pledged to grant " indemnity " to those who had surrendered opium for the service of the Government, be that in- demnity what it might—more or less than the invoice cost. He was opposed by the AccoRNEx-GENERAL, and supported by Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH. Sir ROBERT PEEL rested much on the fact that Lord Palmer- ston had himself suggested 6,000,000 dollars to Sir Henry Pottinger ; and that officer, Captain Elliot, and the Indian Government, concurred in thinking it adequate compensation. There had been fair notice by the Government to the traders, before this seizure, that the Government would not give them redress for the consequences of any contraband traffic. He denied that the British Government had been pledged to compensate the owners : they had only been pledged to obtain compensation from the Chinese Government ; and that compensa- tion was the 6,000,000 dollars. Lord PALMERSTON argued, that if the opium had been directly seized by the Chinese Government, the owners would have had no claim against this; but the manner of the seizure threw the reponsibility on the British Government. His sug- gestion of 6,000,000 dollars had been as a minimum; he had even mentioned 3,000,000 dollars as a mean : besides, his instructions had been departed from. The information obtained by Government was not specific enough to supersede the necessity for further inquiry. In continued debate, Government were supported by Sir ROBERT INGLIS ; opposed by Mr. HUME, Mr. PATRICK MAXWELL STEWART, Dr. Bow- unto, and Mr. BENJAMIN WOOD.
Lord Par.msatscoss started a formal objection, and proposed the omis- sion of the words which recognized the 4th article of the treaty with China, because the treaty was not yet officially known to Parliament. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it had been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Eventually, the amendment was rejected, by 74 to 27; and the original motion was affirmed.
Early in the day, the Committee on the Poor-relief (Ireland) Bill was resumed, and clause 16th was further discussed. Mr. Ross moved an alteration, which tended to preserve the power of the rate-payers over rates for emigration, instead of limiting the power to the Poor-law Commissioners and Guardians. The amendment was rejected, by 66 to 18; and the House resumed.
The House went into Committee on the Theatres Regulation Bill.
Before doing so, however, petitions were presented from 8,600 dramatic aathors and actors, Frances Davidge, the lessee of the Surrey Theatre, John Maddox, the lessee of the Princess's Theatre, and from the prin- cipal proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, deprecating invasion of their interests; and Captain PECHELL and Captain Poratuz called for explanation as to the extent to which the bill would affect the Patent Theatres. Sir JAMES GRAHArd said, that the Crown had the power to alter the existing patents, or to grant other patents derogating from their privileges ; but in point of fact the bill left the patents un- touched. On clause 9th, Kr. H. BERKELEY objected to the power which it conferred upon the Lord Chamberlain of closing theatres. Sir JAMES Gitsizesd said, that it was only meant to enable the Lord Cham- berlain to close the theatres' on occasions of mourning ; and a slight alteration was made in the clause better to define that object. On clause 13th, Mr. Thomas DrusComnE objected to the period of twenty- one days allowed to the Lord Chamberlain to examine new plays : the Lady of the Lake was written, examined, rehearsed, and brought oat, within fourteen days. Sir JAMES GRAHAM agreed to reduce the term to seven days. The bill passed the Committee.
Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of a petition, which stated, that a meeting at Hall, on the 15th April, to petition Parliament on the subject of the trial of certain Chartists, had been violently interrupted by the Police. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, be had quite a different statement : the meeting was held after eight o'clock at night, in the dark, and great excitement pre- vailed ; therefore the Police were obliged to disperse it ; but no violence was used, nor was there any complaint of it before the Magistrates at the time. Mr. Hut E reprobated the doctrine that the people were not to meet in the dark. Mr. Hurr defended the Hull Magistrates. The motion was rejected, by 83 to 29.
Several measures were forwarded a stage; among them, the Hackney nd Stage Carriages Bill passed through Committee.
Previous page
