could be made against the former. If it local Judges, who had opportunities of had been thought by anyone that a considering the merits of the various public prosecutor had failed to perform practitioners appearing before them, and his duty by not pressing a charge to to whose interest it clearly was that the which he ought to have adhered, he (the best man should be appointed. With Lord Advocate) would not only cause reference to the Bill which proposed to investigation to be made, but would even extend this system to England, he sugmake it himself. No such complaint, gested whether some such mode of aphowever, had been made to him. His pointment as that adopted in Scotland hon. Friend the Member for Greenock might not prevent many of the objections (Mr. Grieve) had adverted to a case which had been urged against the adopwhich occurred just before he took his tion of the system in this country-those present Office-that in which a man was objections being principally founded on accused of murdering a woman. The the idea that the patronage was to be trial was held at the Glasgow Circuit given to the Crown. The system adopted Court, after he succeeded to Office, and in Scotland had, to his thinking, worked that was the reason why he was brought admirably. As to Lord Cockburn, he into communication with the presiding rather thought that learned Lord had Judge, who volunteered the information lived to change his opinion; while it that, in his opinion, the Advocate De- was generally thought by the legal propute-who had been assailed in the fession in Scotland that the existing newspapers-had taken a right course, mode of appointment was the best that and one which had the entire approba- could be devised, and that to transfer tion of both himself and his brother the power of appointment to the TreaJudge on circuit. The public had not sury under any Government would be those means of judging which the Advo- attended with considerable risk, because cate Depute possessed, and if in that appointments, would occasionally, though particular case the public had been ac- not generally, be made with reference curately informed they might have been to political opinions, and to satisfy poliof the same opinion as the Judges, that tical claims. That objection was not there had not been any miscarriage of applicable to the system at present foljustice in that case. That, however, lowed in Scotland. As regarded the did not affect the system of public prose-payment of Procurators Fiscal, the Lord cutions, and if there had been a miscarriage of justice in any individual case it was only what might occur under any other system. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) he wished to remind the House that last week a Bill, the object of which was to introduce the system of public prosecutors into England, was referred to a Select Committee, which would have power, as far as the Members might think necessary to enable them to judge of the desirability of introducing the system into this country, to take what evidence they pleased. Reviewing the whole subject, it appeared to him there had not been made out any case for the appointmentof a Select Committee to take evidence upon this subject. MR. GORDON said, that he concurred generally in the views which had been expressed by the Lord Advocate, and especially in what he had said as to the first point of the proposed inquiry namely, the appointment of Procurators Fiscal. He (Mr. Gordon) was equally of opinion that it should remain with the Advocate was quite right in saying that if those officers were deprived of the opportunity they now enjoyed of conducting their private business, a very considerable advance in their salaries must be made, which would throw an additional burden on the public funds. That was, however, a fair topic for consideration, though his own inclination was to adhere to a system which had really worked well. Something similar existed in Ireland, where the Crown Solicitor conducted private business, and the system, he presumed, had been applied to Ireland upon considerations such as those which had been urged by the Lord Advocate. With regard to the practice of examining witnesses in the absence of the accused-a system to which the Lord Advocate was opposed-it should be distinctly understood that the Scotch law gave great facilities to the accused, who 14 days before his trial was furnished with a list of the witnesses against him, and when in Court always had the privilege of being defended by counsel; in addition to which there was the pecu liarity of the Scotch jury system, by which a majority might convict or acquit, or might find a verdict of "Not proven, ," which enabled a conscientious jury to come to a conclusion that satisfied their own minds, without actually acquitting a prisoner, which must sometimes be the case if they had not that refuge. He trusted that the system of the private examination of witnesses would not be altered lightly, or without due consultation with persons who had well considered our system of criminal jurisprudence. He would venture to say that the system of administering the criminal law in Scothad hitherto worked admirably. He was not aware of any defect in it, nor had he heard of anyone who had suffered injustice from it. While in theory it might not appear to be the best system, he would say there was no system of criminal administration that had worked better than that now in operation in Scotland. MR. GRIEVE asked to be permitted to state, by way of explanation, in reference to the four cases of stabbing he had referred to, that he had received from the Chief Constable of Greenock a telegram stating that a plea of culpable homicide was tendered and accepted in one case, and that the other three went to trial and were convicted. SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE said, that basing his opinion on well-authenticated statements, he believed that owing to the secret mode of conducting inquiries miscarriages of justice had taken place. The manner in which secret inquiries were conducted in cases of sudden death and fatal accident was eminently unsatisfactory, the matter being left to the discretion of a public officer, without any of those securities which the publicity of inquests afforded in England. Another matter deserving of attention was the manner in which the Procurators Fiscal were paid. If the mode of payment operated as an inducement to exertion-which he doubted-it unfairly laid them open to the imputation of augmenting business to increase their salaries. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that the Crown invariably paid by salary; the counties also generally paid their proportions by salary, and although some counties did not, it was quite in their power to do so. No doubt they must carry the Sheriff of the county Mr. Gordon along with them; but there was not a Sheriff in Scotland who would object to the adoption of such a system. The real difficulty was, that in one or two cases the counties wished to have the county rates relieved to a greater extent than was possible at present out of the public Exchequer; which showed that the whole business was not a mere question of payment by salary or fees, but of more or less relieving the local rates at the expense of the public Revenue. It might be possible to increase the relief, but it could be done only as it was done in England. SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN, disclaiming any intention to attack officers who had worked well under a defective system, intimated that he should take the opinion of the House on his Motion. Question put, and negatived. EAST INDIA (OPIUM REVENUE). RESOLUTION. SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, when the Indian Budget was before the House in August last year, the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler) and myself made some remarks in condemnation of the system of raising a large portion of the Revenues of India from opium; and on that occasion the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding (Mr. C. Denison) said it was not a question that could be properly discussed in that way; but that if we objected to the opium traffic and the opium Revenue, we should bring the question fairly before the House. In answer to the challenge, we venture to bring forward the Resolution which I have put on the Paper for to-day "That this House condemns the system by which a large portion of the Indian Revenue is raised from Opium." Before going any further, I had better explain that the principle which I believe in, and which has led me to propose this Motion, is the old and wellknown principle that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. I do not want to dogmatize; I do not want to say that that is the rule which ought to be applied to all legislation. I only say that I believe it to be so. hon. Gentlemen who do not hold that opinion will find nothing in my speech which will warrant them in voting, or induce them to vote, for my Resolution. Those the former Parliament did. Above all, I rejoice to say that the old-spirited foreign policy, which consisted, as far as I could understand it, in bullying the weak and truckling to the strong, is dead-I hope never to revive again. To prove my case, of course I must bring forward evidence. I do not like reading long quotations; but I must read quotations in this case, for my assertion of the nature of the traffic will scarcely be taken by the House. The House must understand that this opium, as prepared and sold by the Indian Government, is not medical opium; it is not a drug intended for the soothing of men's pains and sufferings. I have evidence here of the highest authorities which, I think, distinctly proves that. It would take too long to read it; but the House will take my word that that is the case. But I must prove what the real effect of the drug is. Lord Shaftesbury, in the debate to which I have alluded, read a most remarkable declaration signed by Sir Benjamin Brodie and 25 of the most eminent physicians of that day. The paper was drawn up by Sir Benjamin Brodie. I believe that Lord Shaftesbury offered it to him for signature, and Sir Benjamin Brodie himself altered it and made it stronger and more emphatic. This is what the 25 of the most eminent medical men of that day said— It all depends upon whether they believe in the principle. If the principle be right, I must proceed to show that this traffic in opium, fostered and promoted by our Government, is in itself immoral and injurious to those among whom it is carried on; and having proved that, in accordance with the principle which I have stated, I think I shall have made out a ground for the House carrying the Resolution I have ventured to propose. At any rate the Prime Minister will not object to my principle, for I remember in a pamphlet which he wrote not long since, seeing these words-"Few would deny the obligation of a State to follow the moral law." It is a rather remarkable fact that the question-which I believe is a very grave question indeed, involving, as it does, the happiness of multitudes in the East-has never been fairly discussed in this House or fairly brought before it for 27 years. On the 4th of April, 1843, the Earl of Shaftesbury, who was then Lord Ashley, moved in this House a Resolution virtually the same as that which I am moving now. The Government of that day-the Government of Sir Robert Peel-did not venture to oppose the Motion with a negative, but felt themselves constrained to move the "Previous Question." Ultimately, however, Lord Shaftesbury was induced to withdraw his Motion, on the statement of Sir Robert Peel that negotiations were pending, and that such a Motion being carried in the House would interfere with those negotiations. No change has taken place since then in the system which Lord Shaftesbury condemned-that is to say, no material change. There is no change, of course, in the nature of the drug, or in the misery it causes to those who consume it; and there is no change in the habits of those to whom it is sold, and their desire to obtain it. But there is a change in certain circumstances which, perhaps, well warrant me in bringing and Mr. Marjoribanks, many years in the question now under the notice of the service of the East India Company the House. Since the day when Lord Shaftesbury made his Motion, there has in China, and president of their select committee in Canton, said been a great change in the government of India. We now are more directly and more distinctly responsible for that government than we were in the old days of the East India Company. Moreover, we have a new Parliament elected on a new franchise, and they may take a different view of the question to what VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] "They could not but regard those who promoted the use of opium as an article of luxury as inflicting a most serious injury on the human race." Yet the Indian Government have gone on promoting its use from that day to this. The Court of Directors themselves, who were carrying on the trade, said, in a despatch to the Governor General, dated October 24th, 1817 "Were it possible to prevent the use of the drug altogether, except for the purposes of medicine, we would gladly do it in compassion to mankind;" "The misery and demoralization occasioned by it are almost beyond belief;" and Consul Lay, as quoted by Mr. Montgomery Martin before the House of Commons in 1847, said "It is hamstringing the nation." Mons. Huc, the celebrated Catholic missionary and tra R veller, gives an account of how it ope- my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin rates on the victims. He says(Mr. Grant Duff). He explained that "With the exception of some rare smokers, all in Bengal opium is grown by the Goothers advance rapidly towards death, after hav-vernment: the Government are the acing passed, through successive stages of idleness, tual dealers in it. debauchery, poverty, the ruin of their physical it at Calcutta by auction. strength, and the complete prostration of their intellectual and moral faculties. Nothing can stop a smoker who has made much progress in the habit." Mr. Montgomery Martin, who held high office under the British Government at Hong Kong, says "The slave trade was merciful compared with the opium trade. Every hour is bringing new victims to a Moloch which knows no satiety, where the English murderer and Chinese suicide vie with each other in offerings at his shrine." And a Chinese mandarin well summed up the case when he said-"It is not the man who eats the opium, but the opium eats the man." Let me give you one more quotation, more telling than all-a quotation from the Select Committee of the House itself. The Select Committee on our Commercial Relations with China admit that— They grow it and sell The opium grown in Central India is shipped at Bombay. In round numbers, about half comes from Bengal and half from Bombay. In 1800 only about 4,000 chests were imported into China, and now the importation is rather more than 70,000 chests. It is important to understand the history of this trade. We must remember that all this opium was positively smuggled into China before 1860. There were proclamations forbidding its importation till that year, when, by the Treaty with Lord Elgin, the Chinese consented at length to admit it. That was the beginning of the system. The defence of this smuggling in those days was that it was connived at by the Chinese officials. I do not know enough of Chinese history to affirm or deny the truth of that view; but I am inclined to think that if true it proves too much. I have no doubt there was bribery and to a very great extent; but I do not see corruption among the Chinese officials how that could make the traffic any better. If men broke into the house of another, it would be no excuse to say— The bribery and corruption of officials "We are in league with the footman." to injure the Chinese Government only makes the case worse. Captain Elliot writes the disgrace and vice of this forced traffic on the "No man entertains a deeper detestation of coast of China than the humble individual who signs this despatch.' "They are afraid the demoralizing influence on the population of the opium trade is incontestible and inseparable from its existence." These quotations are perhaps enough to prove that we are not wrong in con- That was in November, 1839. While demning this traffic: but I got a letter this smuggling was going on the greatest this morning from Mr. Wylie, who, I efforts were made by our representatives fancy, knows as much of China as any to induce the Imperial Government to man, for he has been employed by the legalize this traffic; but they stood out Bible Society for the last 20 years travel-resolutely against it, and got more deterling up and down the country, and he says "Anyone who has lived half that time among the Chinese can scarcely have a doubt as to the destructive effects of opium physically, mentally, and morally. Undoubtedly this is one of the greatest evils with which China is affected, and unless some means be found to check the practice, it bids fair to accomplish the utter destruction, morally and physically, of that great Empire." The system on which this traffic is carried on was stated last year very shortly and very clearly in the Budget speech of Sir Wilfrid Lawson mined to oppose the trade as they saw more and more of its evils. In October, 1836, they adopted strong prohibitory measures, and really in earnest set to work to try to stop this smuggling. They tried peaceable means for some time; but in 1839, when our own representative said that they almost succeeded in stopping the trade, the war broke out in consequence of the seizure of opium belonging to British merchants then on the coast of China. In March, by our Plenipotentiary, and that duty of 10 per cent on opium has remained until within a very few months. But what was the opinion of our leading statesmen concerning that war? I am going to quote these opinions, not so much because they condemn the war itself, but because they condemn pretty_strongly the cause of that war. The President of the Board of Trade said, with regard to the first war "No man, I believe, with a spark of morality in his composition, no man who cares anything for the opinion of his fellow-countrymen, has dared to justify that war." And what did the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government say 1837, the Imperial Government seized "A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace, he did not know and had not read of. If the British flag were never to be hoisted except as it was then hoisted, we should recoil from its light with horror. Justice, in his opinion, was with the Chinese. Whilst they, the pagans, had substantial justice on their side, we, the enlightened and civilized Christians, were pursuing objects at variance both with justice and religion." I The point of that quotation is this, that we have been pursuing those objects ever since and are pursuing them now, not making war for them, but pursuing them in such manner as we are enabled to do from the result of that war. have said that the duty on opium has been raised, and that the Chinese were anxious to have it raised higher, in order to restrict the trade as much as possible. Now, Sir, I apprehend that it is very possible my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin may say that the Chinese are not in earnest in opposing the introduction of opium into China. I have shown that they proved themselves in earnest in 1839; and if they are not in earnest, can he tell me why they should put out this proclamation? Their conduct in this treaty shows their earnestness. And there is another remarkable thing, that the rebels in China made it a part of their charter or their creed or their proclamation that they had a deadly hostility to the cultivation of the poppy in China. Both the Taepings and the Government united in condemning the poppy, showing that public opinion in China was decidedly against it. Surely we cannot be surprised at this condemnation of the traffic and of the cultivation of the poppy. Surely a Christian country can |