%- Tr^Je, Ji'Ui>sell & Son&y Bakar iStreet^ London. SPEECH ON THE OPIUM TRADE By the Archbishop of Canterbury Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Columbia University Libraries https://archive.org/details/opiumtradeOOtemp THE OPIUM TRADE AS IT AFFECTS CHINA A SPEECH DELIVERED BY The archbishop OF CANTERBURY AT A MEETING IN LAMBETH PALACE, ON FRIDAY, iST JULY 1898 The purpose of our meeting this afternoon is that an Examination of the Report of the Commissioners upon the Opium Trade should be put before you as clearly as possible, in the hope that in this way we may suc- ceed in opening the eyes of the British public to the mischievous effects of our action in China in this matter, and the importance of not merely accepting, as many people are so apt to do, the Report of the Commissioners, but of examining for ourselves and seeing whether the Report really corresponds with the evidence that was put before the Commissioners. The Report is called in question, and called in question on the ground that the evidence which the Commissioners themselves have published does not bear out the inferences which they have drawn from that evidence ; and the Examination of the Report with that view, as far as I have been able to master it, 4 The Opium Trade seems to me very decidedly to establish the conclu- sion at which the examiners have arrived- — that we cannot really trust the Eeport that has been made. (Applause.) The True Principle of Morals Independent of the question of evidence, there is also the question of the principles asserted in the Report ; and, as a Christian man, I feel, and I have no doubt that a good many others feel, that we are bound to protest against the application of such prin- ciples to the national conduct, because the question has been treated very much on this footiug — that, if a change in our practice cannot be proved to be certain of producing the result of diminishing the evil habit of opium-smoking in China, we are therefore quite at liberty to go on encouraging that evil habit, and that the moral responsibility is taken off from us because, even if we discontinued what we are doing, the result would be just the same. I cannot understand how any Christian man can say that he is at liberty to take any part whatever in doing a great evil on the ground that, if he does not do it, it will nevertheless be done by other people. (Applause.) Our Lord has remarked in one place — and what He says ought certainly to be constantly present in our minds — that it is quite true that offences 5 as it affects China must come ; that is, there will be temptations, and there will he stumbling-blocks, and they are sure to come; hut He forestalled this argument immediately by saying, “Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.” It will not do for you to say, “ If I do not tempt these people, the people nevertheless will be tempted.” If you argue in that way you are to under- stand, “Woe to those who in this way bring temptation into the way of their fellow-creatures, and plead simply that they are doing what would be done by others.” The true principle of morals is to have nothing whatever to do with that which is shown to be neces- sarily productive of evil. And, moreover, I think that this is emphasised very much indeed by the history of the opium trade, for we know that this mischief in China is not centuries old, as some people suppose, but that it began about 170 years ago, and that it has gradually spread from one province of China to another, and that it is still spreading, and, as far as it is evil, it is now increasing upon the poor Chinese. The temptation is growing stronger and stronger ; and if it be the case that we cannot now stop that temptation from producing evil effects — if, indeed, that be the case, it is because of our action that it is so. We ! WE have done what has caused all this evil, and we are responsible for the mischief that has flown from it. 6 The Opium Trade No Country is at Liberty to raise Eevenue by Temptations to Evil And, if this be one principle against which I think it right to protest, namely, the principle that we are at liberty to do what is wrong because, if we do not do it, somebody else will, there is another principle which is of the very greatest importance, which I also protest against, namely, that we have a right to consider that we are raising money for the revenue of India by that trade, and that we are not at liberty to stop the raising of that money, and that for revenue purposes we must continue a practice which has done such fearful mischief in China and is still continuing to do it, because, if we were to give it up, we should sacrifice so much revenue. I do not believe that any country is at liberty to raise revenue by temptations to evil, — (applause), — and in this case there is upon us a double responsibility. It is not as if there were a large amount of opium being grown in India by private individuals, and the trade conducted by those private individuals went on with China and the immediate neighbourhood of China, and we were responsible simply for not prohibiting that trade. It may be quite just that you should pause, and pause long, before you interfere with what private traders are doing ; but in this case it is not private trade. It is our own trade ; we are doing it ourselves. That we 7 as it affects China should continue to grow this opium, which is not our business as a government, and never can be our busi- ness as a government ; that we should grow this opium in order to raise revenue, is, I really think, without any parallel whatever in the whole extent of the world ; and certainly I protest against having any share in the responsibihty of the government for continuing such a practice as this. I have no doubt that men who see the evil effects of opium-smoking do exaggerate. I have no doubt they do. I know there is such exaggeration in almost every matter, but where a great evil is committed before our very eyes we can hardly help exaggerating. But the evidence, when you look into it, after you have made every deduction that is possible for the possibility of exag- geration — after you have reduced it in this way- — still remains overwhelmingly strong that we have done a great wrong to China, and that we are continuing in the same path. (Applause.) OuK Duty to China I am speaking, of course, simply on the general question. Who is it that has forced this trade upon China ? We have forced it upon China. It is now commonly said that the Chinese consent. Yes, they consent because they are helpless, because they are hopeless, because they have seen that in the struggle 8 The Opium Trade they are always beaten. They have given up the struggle in despair, and it may be that their despair has gone so far that, for some time to come, even if we gave up the trade entirely, they might be unable or unwilling to control the trade for themselves. It may be so. I cannot answer the question, and I do not think that the evidence in the Eeport of the Com- missioners is sufficient to give an answer to the question which, as far as I can see, it would be possible for us to stand on. But it still remains that we are at present unquestionably standing in the way and making it im- possible for them to do anything. At any rate, let us stand aside, and let the Chinese govern themselves. Just at present we are claiming that we are standing aloof while other nations are trying to disintegrate China. Which is the worst ? Which is the worst treatment — to disintegrate China by attacks from without, or by a subtle poison poured into the veins of the nation by the trade in opium ? (Applause.) China would be able to defend herself if it had not been for our fault ; and even at this time, if we wish to show friendliness to China, the first act that we ought to put upon our policy is the act of stopping this trade, and setting the Chinese absolutely free to deal with it as they think fit. I have only spoken generally, and there are speakers who will speak more particularly. I will now call upon the Eeverend Prebendary Webb-Peploe to move a resolution. as it affects China g At the close of the meeting, in response to a vote of thanks, the Archbishop said : — I am much obliged to you for the vote of thanks, but I trust that it really means something more than a vote of thanks ; that is, that it really means that the meeting intends to press forward in this cause, and not to let it grow slack because, having met together and considered it, we have dismissed it from our minds upon leaving the place of discussion. If we mean anything by what we have been saying and what we have accepted from those who have spoken, the effect ought to follow very soon in the shape of doing our utmost to stir the consciences of the English people on the matter, and especially in the shape of putting pressure on the Government of the country to examine into the question with some care themselves. And now our business having concluded, I will dismiss the meeting, as we began, with prayer. His Grace then pronounced the benediction. A former Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Tait), in a Speech on the Opium Trade, said I have, after very serious consideration, come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when we ought most distinctly to state our opinion, that the course at present pursued by the Government in relation to this matter is one which ought to be abandoned at all costs . — Speech at the Mansion Rouse. lo The Opimn Trade as it affects China The late Archbishop of York (Dr. Thomson), speaking on the Opium Trade, said : — This is a question affecting the whole of the human race for whom Christ died. It affects this great country in its honour and its consistency ; it affects the population of China more vitally still. It affects all manufactures, because I am told that it is an established fact that the exports of every class are hindered by this difficulty about the opium question. There is hardly a class in this country, or remotely connected with this country, which is not affected by this question, and we, as ministers of religion, dear friends, are esnecially bound to it. We are bound by the example of One who went about the world doing good, and if we go about the world doing evil we are not only not with Him, but we are against Him, and He will, according to His law, cast us out. He loves all the people of the world alike, and we cannot sit down, as some statesmen have done, by saying, “Oh, we would abolish this trade if we could, but then consider the revenue.” Words like those have occurred in speeches, and even in public documents put forth in this country. We, as Christian ministers, have nothing to do with that ; though the whole of the revenue of India, from end to end, de- pended entirely on the opium traffic, if it is a sinful and wrong traffic, we are hound to protest against it, and to seek other ways in which revenue of some sort can be supplied. It is not a matter which we can afford any longer to treat with indifference ; we will approach the Crown in every way that lies in our power, and we will express our opinion that the time has come to make the necessary ar- rangements for the suppression of this iniquitous traffic. The late Archbishop of Dublin (Lord Plunket), in a Speech on the Opium Traflffc, said : — Those who denounced this traffic were standing upon the basis of the eternal principles of justice and righteousness. ITHE EXAMINATION REFERRED TO BY THE ARCHBISHOP IS THE UNDERMENTIONED^ Royal Commission on Opmm THE REPORT OF THE ROYAE COMMISSION ON OPIUM COMPARED WITH THE EVIDENCE FROM CHINA THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION: AN EXAMINATION AND AN APPEAL BY ARNOLD FOSTER, B.A. HANKOW, CHINA WITH PREFACE SIGNED BY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND I4^ OTHERS LONDON : PRINTED BY EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE PRINTERS TO THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY To be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from P. S. KING & SON, 2 & 4 Great Smith Street, Westminster 1899 PRICE SIXPENCE. BY POST EIGHTPENCE. PEEFACE We, the undersigned, earnestly call attention to the Rev. Arnold Foster’s Examination of the China portions of the Report of the Commission on Opmm. Mr. Foster has full right to he heard on this subject. He is a resident of twenty-five years in the heart of China, and he has given much time to a thorough study of the Blue Books published by the Commission. Let his Examination be really examined. We believe that the argument of it will be found as strong as a perfectly fair use of sure premises can make it. Mr. Foster, it will be seen, has carefully limited his data. He deals with the China problem alone; but as the Commissioners themselves state that the opium exported from India to China and the Far East is twelve times more than that consumed in India, the China problem is plainly the heart, and centre of the whole matter. And he goes entirely upon the evidence printed, as the ground of their Report, by the Commissioners themselves. Incident- ally he makes it clear that too httle care was taken to ascertain the competence of China witnesses, and that some whose evidence is adduced for important conclusions were not qualified to speak without large reserves. But this defect of method only adds force to the Examiner’s contention, when he pleads that even thus the data before the Commissioners call aloud for a widely different verdict than that given in their Report. The Opium Trade as it affects China 13 We believe that the spirit of our anti -slavery fathers is yet strong in the nation. In that belief we appeal to the thinking public for a fresh hearing on this great question. Either Mr. Foster’s premises are irrelevant, and his inferences futile (and they are all now in the readers’ hands to be examined), or we have here a matter touching to the quick the conscience and the honour of the nation. Yet more, it is no fanaticism, but a simple assertion of fact, to say that the matter touches the fair fame of our Faith, and the sacred cause of our Lord, in the Far East of to-day. F. Cantvae, Archbishop of Canterbury. John W. Carlisle, Bishop of Carlisle. G. A. Derry, Bishop of Derry and Eaphoe. J. C. Liverpool, Bishop of Liverpool. John Norvic, Bishop of Norwich. Edw. Eoffen, Bishop of Rochester. P. S. Royston, Late Bishop of Mauritius, now Assistant Bishop, Liverpool, Kinnaird. OVERTOUN. POLWAETH. W. T. A. Barber, B.D., Headmaster of The Leys School, Cambridge. J. Bevan Braithwaite. Hubert Brooke, M.A. (Rev.), Brighton. A. R. Buckland, M.A. (Rev.), Editor of “ The Record.” C. Bullock, B.D., Editor of ‘ ‘ Home Words, ” etc. Alfred M. W. Christopher, M.A., Rector of St. Aldate’s, Oxford, Hon. Canon of Christ Church. 4 The Opizim Trade Matthew Dodswoeth, Bart. Geoege C. M. Douglas, D.D., Principal of the Free Church Colleqe, Glasqow, H. E. Fox, M.A., Hon. Sec., Church Missionary Society. R. W. Foeeest, Dean of Worcester. J. Monko Gibson, D.D. H. M. Gwatkin, M.A., Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Gamlridge. F. T. Haig, Major-General. James H. Haslett, K.B., M.P. Edward Lee Hicks, M.A., Canon of Manchester. Henry Scott Holland, M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Joseph Howard, M.P. Hugh Price Hughes, M.A., President of the Wesleyan Conference. David J. Stather Hunt, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, Tunbridge Wells. William Hutton, Moderator of Synod of Presbyterian Church of England. J. H. JowETT, M.A. (Rev.), Birmingham. Caleb R. Kemp, J.P. G. W. Kitchen, D.D., F.S.A., Dean of Durham. Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., {Professor), Glasgow. Alexander M'Laren, D.D., Manchester. Hugh Macmillan, D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.E. Patrick Manson, M.D., LL.D., F.R.C.P.Eng., London. James E. Mathieson, J.P. James L. Maxwell, M.A., M.D., Secretary, London Medical Missionary Association. F. B. Meyer, B.A., Christ Church, W estminster Bridge Road. Handley C. G. Moule, D.D., Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge; Hon. Chaplain to the Queen. Henry Stanley Newman, J.P., Editor of “ Friend,” Leominster. W. Robertson Nicoll, D.D., Editor of “ The British Weekly." as it affects China 15 W. Hatt Noble, Maj or- General. Joseph W. Pease, Bart., M.P. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A., D.D., F.E.I.S., Professor, Free Ghurch College, Aberdeen. Samuel Smith, M.P. Eugene Stock, Editorial Secretary, Ghurch Missionary Society. T. Alfked Stowbll, M.A., Rector of Charley ; Hon. Canon of Manchester. H. Arnold Thomas, M.A., Bristol, Chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. H. W. Webb-Pbploe, M.A., Vicar of St, Paul’s, Onslow Square ; wnd Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Alexe. Whyte, D.D., Moderator of Assembly of Free Church of Scotland. Basil Wilberfobce, D.D., Canon, of Westminster. George Williams, Knt., President of the Young Mens Christian Association. And Ninety- three Others. FEOM AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE “ EXAMINATION ” “ The Marquia of Salisbury, at the end of last June, said : ‘ If I am asked what our policy in China is, my answer is very simple. It is to maintain the Chinese Empire, to prevent it falling into ruins, to invite it into paths of reform, and to give it every assistance which we are able to give it, to perfect its defence or to increase its commercial prosperity. By so doing we shall he aiding its cause and our own.’ “With the policy thus described I am in the most hearty sympathy, but nothing is more certain than that the min of China cannot be averted unless the opium habit now spreading with such terrible rapidity amongst the Chinese people can by some means be checked and overcome. It is this, more than almost any other single cause. 1 6 The Opium Trade as it affects China that has reduced the rulers, the soldiers, and the people of China to their present condition of paralysis and decay. As the habit spreads so most assuredly will the decay spread. No military or naval reforms, no fiscal, educational, or other changes can rehabilitate a nation whose whole manhood is being steadily sapped by the spread of a national vice such as the opium habit. ‘ ‘ Throughout this book I have carefully abstained from appealing to any anti-opium evidence that was not before the Koyal Commissioners when they drew up their Keport. I make an exception in this preface.” The exception is a quotation from a book recently published in China by H. E. Chang Chih-tung, who is, Mr. Foster says, “one of the leading and most influential statesmen in China. In point of ability, honesty, disinterestedness, and patriotism he stands second to no official in the Empire. Under the heading ‘ The expulsion of the poison,’ he writes thus : ‘ (1) Deplorable indeed is the injury done by opium ! . . . The sufferers from this injury amount to untold millions. . . . It destroys meir’s abilities, it weakens the vigour of the soldier, it wastes their wealth, until it results at length in China being what she is to-day. . . . After a few tens of years it will result in China becoming altogether the laughing-stock of the world.’ ” Mr. Foster concludes his preface thus ; “ The first reform to which Great Britain must invite China, if she wishes to save the Chinese Empire from failing into ruins, is the abandonment of the opium habit, and the first step towards that reform must be the withdrawal of Great Britain itself from all partici- pation in the opium trade. If Lord Salisbury will, at whatever cost, help China to shake off this great evil from which she is now suffering, he may even yet do something to save the Chinese nation. If Eng- land persists in refusing to recognise this evil, all other movements which she may make in the direction of reforming China will be found to be unavailing.” Prhited by R. & R. ClakI':, Limited, Edinbur^iu