7 °f ,y ' AN ANALYSIS OF THE Opium Commission Report SHOWING SOME OF ITS MISSTATEMENTS, EVASIONS, AND GARBLED QUOTATIONS. (Reprinted from “ The Opium Habit in the East,” a Study by Joshua Rowntree). ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE OPIUM TRADE, FINSBURY HOUSE, BLOMFIELD STREET, LONDON, E.C. 1896. Price One Penny. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. Whilst the Report presented by the Majority of the late Royal Commission on Opium, as will be seen from the following review, is open to grave exception, the evidence given before the Commission, when carefully examined, strengthens the position of the Anti-opium Societies. Formerly, the evidence in support of the objects for which our Society was established more than twenty years ago, viz., to put an end to the Indo-Chinese trade in opium, was chiefly drawn from private sources, and we were accused of exaggerating the evils. Now, the evidence given in public by men of long and intimate knowledge of the East, and of the highest character, including many natives of India, Burma, and China, and which, when the presence of the witnesses rendered this possible, has stood the test of severe cross-examination, fully substantiates all our statements respecting the misery and demoralisation caused by opium in China, and confirms our fears lest India should follow in her wake. The quantity consumed in India is small compared with China, but it is only sixty or seventy years ago that the con- sumption per head in China was the same as it now is in India. The public generally have hitherto been supplied by the press with but a small portion of the evidence, and that mainly on the pro-opium side. It is hoped that the separate publication of this criticism of the Majority Report may lead many, who have not the time or opportunity to read the bulky Blue Books containing the proceed- ings of the Commission, to procure and peruse the “Study of the Evidence and Report,”* by Mr. Joshua Rowntree, of which the following is the final chapter, and in which they will find, fairly summarised, and in a concise form, the balance of evidence pro and con. Though all but the last chapter has been published more than nine months, its facts and figures remain unchallenged. On behalf of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade : — JOSEPH W. PEASE, President. DONALD MATHESON, Chairman. JOSEPH G. ALEXANDER, Hon. Secretary. GEORGE A. WILSON, Organizing Secretary. Jajvuary , i8g6. *“The Opiupi Habit in the East. A Study of the Evidence and Report of the Royal Commission on Opium.” Second edition, price 6d., free by post 8£d. Can be ob- tained from the office of the Society, Finsbury House, Blomfield Street, London, E.C. THE REPORT. The Report of the Royal Commission on Opium has now been made public. On April 22, 1895, a lengthy notice of it appeared in the Times. The Report, however, was not presented to Parliament until the 25th. Part I. was in print and obtainable on May 4. Part II. followed some days after, and a supplemental paper containing the full text of the Maharaja of Darbhanga’s memorandum appeared on the 22nd May. Part I. and Part II. of the Report are two volumes comprising 408 pages, viz. : Report signed by eight Commissioners (subject to qualifica- tions by two of them), 97 pp. ; Memorandum by the Medical Commissioner, 2 1 pp. ; Historical Aspects of the question in China, Sir J. Lyall, 14 pp. ; Memorandum on Report, Mr. Haridas Veharidas, 3 pp. ; Dissent, with memorandum on the attitude of the Indian authorities, Mr. H. J. Wilson, M.P., 24 pp. ; Telegraphic Summary of the Maharaja of I )arbhanga’s Memoran- dum, ^ p. ; History of the Anti-Opium Movement in England, the Secretary, 8 pp. ; The Regulation of the Poppy Cultivation in Bengal, the Secretary, 6 pp. ; Tables, the Secretary, 6 pp. ; Further Historical Notes, Sir J. Lyall, 28 pp. ; Historical Note, Mr. Dane, I.C.S., 35 pp. ; History of the First Chinese War and its Causes, Mr. Dane, 150 pp. ; Dispatch, 1 p. ; Index, 202 pp. ; Protest by Mr. Wilson and Chairman’s Reply, 2 pp. Naturally the comments and conclusions of the newspaper press were based on the notice which by the irregular action of the Secretary appeared in the Times a fortnight before the Report was accessible. Readers with the whole text before them will find that this notice was, to say the least, ex parte and incomplete. The majority Report is made up of nine sections. The first eight collect the evidence under different heads, or rather give the opinions and arguments which the Commissioners draw from it. Section 9 gives their general conclusions, and lastly their replies to the questions originally given in the order of reference. The form of expression used in these three steps of the Report varies in some cases considerably. It should be noted that the “replies ” were drawn up at Bombay before the Commission left India. The Report proper was drafted afterwards in England, and the 4 The Opium Commission Report. “ conclusions ” represent the most mature opinions of the majority of the British Commissioners. In some respects they are more sharply pro-opium than the replies drafted at Bombay. On these grounds it will be convenient here to reprint them verbatim. Immediately following each will be found some of the facts and considerations which the writer of this pamphlet submits very materially qualify their significance. Commissioners’ Conclusions. “In summing up the general results of our inquiry , we may first consider the ( i ) arguments by which support has been obtained for the anti-opium movement. It has been widely held that opium is essentially a poiso?i (2), used only for vicious and baneful indul- gence (j). Judgment on such a question must mainly turn on medical evidence (4); and it ?vas abundantly provided for the guidance of your Commission. _ Counter (1) q’he Commissioners can hardly “ consider” what they do Considerations. v 7 J ... not correctly state. The anti-opium movement is hostile to indul- gence in the drug as a luxury, as a dietetic, not as a medicine. (2) T his happens to be the view of the laws of England ; also of one of themselves. The Maharaja of Darbhanga writes ( apropos of the evidence as to frequent fatalities) : — “ I would, however, urge that opium should be sold in bottles or phials labelled ‘poison,’ and the minimum dose which is likely to be fatal should also be legibly printed in the vernacular. . . . Opium is, unlike alcohol, a deadly poison, if taken in excess, and is a dangerous weapon in the hands of ignorant persons.” (3, 4) A great body of witnesses on both sides testify to its use for vicious purposes. More than twenty medical men speak of this to two against. There is prac- tically no opposing evidence. Commissioners' “ Dealing first with the medical witnesses in the service of Conclusions. ° , . Government, their testimony was practically itna?iimous. To the unscientific , the effect of that testimony may, perhaps , be most clearly conveyed by saying that the temperate use ( 1 ) of opium in India should be viewed in the same light as the temperate use of alcohol in England (2). Opium is harmful, harmless, or even beneficial > according to the measure and discretion with which it is used (3)! r^TCounter /j) j n w hat form? Smoking is universally, and drinking de- Consideratiqns. , w „ , , , , . . coctions are frequently, condemned by pro-opium witnesses. (2) Sir William Roberts, writing on the medical evidence, says : — “ At the beginning of the habit there is a tendency to a progressive Commissioners' Conclusions , and Counter Considerations. 5 increase of the dose. ... If the opium eater does not get his dose at the appointed time he feels very uneasy ; he looks stupid and exhausted, his eyes and nose begin to run, he yawns, has pains about the abdomen, and no appetite for his meal. When the supply of opium is suddenly and entirely cut off, the reaction is much more pronounced than in the case of alcohol and tobacco. It is a dreaded ordeal to most consumers, and forms a serious obstacle to the giving up of the habit, when such course is desired from motives of economy or religious scruples.” This cannot really be viewed “in the same light as the temperate use of alcohol in England ” ! If similarity of extent of habit is suggested, this is a yet greater mistake. Sir W. Roberts says : “ Taking India all through, it is evident that only a minority of the inhabitants, generally a small minority, even of the adult males, are opium eaters.” This is further qualified thus (p. 102): “The habit is commonly begun between 35 and 45, when life begins to be on the wane, and the premonitions of age begin to be felt. This epoch occurs much earlier with the natives of India than with See General rr , „ . . x - . Low’s evidence Europeans. I he Commissioners state (p. 17) that “ the true (page 65 of The number of habitual consumers in the native army is probably not i,™ he East ). 1 considerable.” Further, Sir William Roberts says, “Opium eating is much more common amongst men than women.” The numerical position of the opium habit in India, and the alcohol habit in England, instead of being similar, are therefore absolutely the reverse, on the Commissioners’ own showing. (3) Seems lacking in point. “ Opium is used as a stimulant, and it is also largely consumed Commissioners' in India for the mitigation of suffering, and the prevention or cure of disease. It is the universal household remedy ( 1). It is exten- sively admmistered to infants, and the practice does not appear to any appreciable extent injurious (2). The use of opium does not cause insanity. It does not prejudicially affect the birth rate, which in India averaged 42 per 1,000, as against ji'4 per 1,000 for the United Kingdom (j). It does not appear responsible for any disease peculiar to itself. An Insurance Society at Bombay , after twenty years’ experience , has not found it necessary to impose an extra premium on the lives of moderate opium eaters (4).” I ( 1 ) This goes far beyond the evidence. The tables show that Counter .... r . . . . , , Considerations. some millions of people use less than 1 gram per head per annum for all purposes, and 83,000,000 only 6 grains and under for all 6 The Opium Commission Report. purposes. Bishop Thoburn said, “ In many parts of India they do not use opium at all. There must be a multitude of villages where they never see it.” (2) As to infants see p. 48.* (3) It could not, when women are not addicted to the habit ; men only after the prime of life ; and marriages are very early ! (4) This witness, however, added, “Of course if they (moderate opium eaters) were advanced in age, say about 50, and we took them at all, for we have no desire for old lives, we might put on three or five years extra, but we have had no such cases up to date.” Dr. J. G. da Cunha, giving evidence as medical referee to four or five life assurance companies in Bombay, was asked, “ Would what you call a moderate opium user be considered a bad life ? ” said, “ I should advise the addition of some years to the life.” At Calcutta Dr. N. R. Sircar said, “ I am connected with a life assurance company in this city. Ordinarily we do not pass opium eaters, but if any candidate takes small quantities we pass him at a higher premium.” At the time the evidence was given the assurance company referred to in the Report was disputing a claim, partly on the ground that the insurer was an opium eater. The Com- missioners drag in one insurance company, quote it only partially, and exclude all the others ! Commissioners’ Conclusions. Counter Considerations. Commissioners’ Conclusions. “In addition to the evidence tendered by niedical witnesses in the service of the Government, we had the testimony in the same sense ( 1 ) of medical men in private practice , and of medical missionaries, such as ( 2 ) Dr. Clark and Dr. Newto 7 i. The medical witnesses who advocated prohibition were few ( j) ; and all of them were equally , if not more , opposed to the use of alcohol tha7i to that of opium ( 4 ).” (1) What sense? Of qualified non-official medical men only a small proportion defended opium as a dietetic ; not one of either class had ever advised it. (2) Fifteen medical missionaries gave evidence. There were no others whose evidence entitles them to be designated “ such as ” Drs. Clark and Newton. Dr. Clark said, however, “ I am an abolitionist on purely moral grounds.” (3) Fifteen. Many of high standing and large experience advocated greater restrictions on the sale. (4) See p. 29. “ In co 7 mexio 7 i with the medical aspect of the case, it is impor- ta/it to mentio7i that prohibitio7i of the use of opiu7n, except for At pages 48 to 51 of The Opium Habit in the East it is shown that there is a great mass of testimony, chiefly from medical witnesses, as to the evil effects of givingopium to children, and that “ any evidence in favour of its use is rare and almost wholly negative.” Commissioners' Conclusions , and Counter Considerations. 7 medical purposes , even if desirable , could not practically be en- forced ( i ). The medical and quasi-medical uses of the drug are so intermixed that it is impossible to draw a definite line between them (2). Among large masses of the people there is a strong prejudice against the European system of medicine. Not 10 per cent, ever consult a practitioner on the European system, and a large proportion of the native population never in their lives see a medical man of any school (j).” (1) This is an assumption not borne out by the experience of Counter the world at large, or even of Burma. (2) Sir William Roberts Consideratlons - says : — “ These two uses of opium — the medicinal and non- medicinal (or euphoric) — although in principle distinct, are in practice often so merged together and interfused as to be indis- tinguishable” (p. 99.) But they are often not so merged. The method of sale, it is submitted, should be governed by the soundest views as to the legitimate use of the article. The Maharaja is against the majority on this head. (3) The point of the last two sentences is not apparent. Because European doctors are not planted over the land, it does not follow that the dis- pensing of opium should be left, as it is now, to “ the common ignorant farmers or vendors under the present system.” Mr. Haridas considers it might be “ much more safely entrusted ” to the native physicians.” “ Turning to the missionary evidence in subport of prohibition. Commissioners' , , ,r i ■ J 1 Conclusions. we may observe that more than half the witnesses were members of the American Methodist Episcopal and Canadian Presbyterian communions ( 1 ). Their views were shared by representatives of the Presbyterian and Baptist missions , and the London Missionary Society. These devoted men are without doubt most sincere in their belief in the mischief caused by opium. When , however , we are urged to recommend that the paramount authority of the British Parliament should be brought to bear on the Government of India for the prohibition of the production and use of opium , and the extinction of an export trade which was in existence before British rule in India, it is our duty to weigh most carefully the evidence by "which such proposals are supported (2). We are bound to take notice of the circumstance that most of the missionary witnesses were total abstainers , and some were ardent ; workers in the cause (j).” “ We turn to the testimony on the other side. The views of the Bishops and clergy of Calcutta and Lucknow, and of the Roman The Opium Commission Report. Catholic Archbishop of Calcutta (4) have been already set ■ forth. They were opposed to prohibition. We may also invite special attention to the testimony of Mr. James Monro , C.B., formerly Commissioner in Bengal, subsequently Chief Commissioner of Police in London, who has now returned to India for missionary work. (5 ) He had never heard it suggested that the opium trade a?id the Government connectionwith it formed any obstacle to Christian work.” Counter Considerations. (1) At least two missionaries, most unfairly described as if they were foreigners, are shown by the evidence to have been natives of India. The statement is further defective, because a large number of missionaries (as of all other witnesses) expressed no opinion on prohibition, whilst speaking strongly of the evils of the opium habit, and in many cases of the necessity for further restriction of the sale. The Commissioners give these the go by. (2) Why then was not the evidence received from China weighed “most carefully ”? (3) See below, p. 20. (4) The Roman Catholic Archbishop confines himself to the statement that opium does not interfere with the R.C. missions. He says nothing about prohibi- tion. The Bishop and clergy of Lucknow safeguard themselves against expressing any opinion as to “ the morality of the relations of Government to the opium trade with China,” and hold that the abuse of opium, together with the considerable number of suicides, and “the common injurious use of the drug” for children, call for “the most careful watchfulness,” and possibly “additional legis- lative precautions.” (5) In the missionary, as in the insurance company evidence, special stress is laid on one exceptional witness. Commissioners’ Conclusions. “ In a matter closely affecting the habits and customs of the people it would be obviously imprudent to make sweeping changes without some indication of popular approval. JVe are satisfied that if any desire for the suppression of the use of opium had existed in India, on the part of any large section of the population, it would have made itself felt during the lengthened tour of the Commission. The witnesses who advocated prohibition were few ( 1 ), and fewer still were those who could claim to be men of 'weight and authority (2), and in any sense representative. Many belonged to the Bengali sect of the Brahmo Somaj, which numbers about jooo adherents-, the pledge of total abstinetice being a condition of membership. Of the >iative 'witnesses adverse to opium, it may be stated that nearly all 'were total abstainers (j). Many questions were put by our native colleague, Mr. Haridas Veharidas, with the view of eliciting Commissioners' Conclusions, and Counter Considerations. 9 native opinions as to the relative i?ifluence of opium and alcohol, and as to the religious obligation to observe rules of abstinence. In reply } the witnesses generally admitted that the spread of drinking was the more serious evil, and that, while their religion expressly prohibited alcohol (4), there was no direct prohibition of the use of opium." (1) On the next page of the report the “ few” are stated to be „ Counter ' 7 . . . . Considerations. “a considerable minority.” (2) The official Commissioners insisted on some native witnesses stating their salaries as an index to their “ weight and authority.” Who is to say that these were not really more representative of the people than the vast majority of official and titled witnesses ? (3) Elsewhere the Report says, “ The Indians generally are inclined to be thrifty and abstemious in matters of diet as compared with Europeans ; by their religions, also, they are specially disposed to regard asceticism as a virtue, and to think that a man is morally defiled by what he eats and drinks.” (4) The witnesses represented the religions prevailing in India. How comes it, then, that the Commissioners attempt to discredit their evidence to Europeans by ticketing them as total abstainers. Total abstainers are, in Europe, a minority and peculiar. They are just the reverse in India generally. “ The National Congress, consisting of delegates from every Commissioners' 07 . . . os . Conclusions. part of India, has never been slow to criticise the Government. It has made strong declarations against alcohol. It has been silent with reference to opium." Readers of the evidence will note that India can hardlv bear its „ Counter J Considerations. present taxation, and that the dread of increased financial burdens hangs like a weight over native opinion on this matter. The ^atn-eCon- Congress has strongly advocated persistent pressure in carrying 26—29. 1894 out a policy anounced by Government in 1890 but not given effect to : — “that the number of places at which liquor or drugs can be purchased should be strictly limited with regard to the circumstances of each locality.” And, “that efforts should be S u PP len ; e I 1 ’ t , t . c> J Gazette of India made to ascertain the existence of local public sentiment, and that March, 1890. a reasonable amount of deference should be paid to such opinion when ascertained.” “Upon every consideration of prudence and statesmanship, it Commissioner* x f x 1 Conclusions. seems clear that in the position of the British Government i?i India, we cannot deal experimentally with 290 millions of people, in a matter involving interference with the innermost concerns of personal life, with- out a clear pronouncement of native opinion in favour of such a step! IO The 0 pin m Commission Report . Counter Considerations. Commissioners' Conclusions. Counter Considerations. ■Commissioners' Conclusions. The trade in opium as an indulgence only affects a mere fraction of the 290 millions. The Commissioners do not give heed to native opinion when it is clearly pronounced ! Both of the native Indian Royal Commissioners recommend that powers be given of greater administrative restriction in districts where it is manifestly desirable, one of them expressly instancing the suppression of the sale in Burma as a case in point. Unhappily the European majority lag behind. Both the native Royal Commis- sioners advocate the total suppression of the vice of opium smok- ing. Some of the Native States have done this already. And yet the European majority refuse to follow this unmistakably “ clear pronouncement ! ” “ It is not necessary to repeat the figures and the arguments given elsewhere on the financial aspect of the case. In the present circumstances the revenue derived from opium is indispensable for carrying on with efficiency the Government of India. Every native witness who advocated the suppression of the opium traffic admitted that if, as a consequence of such a step , taxation in some new form must be imposed, popular opinion would be opposed to any change This is the gist of the pro-opium case. The opium revenue “is indispensable.” The anti-opium M.P.’s asked in 1893 for a Commission to enquire into the finances of India. It was refused. It has, however, been granted now, and its enquiry will be awaited with interest. Meanwhile the opium revenue has dwindled. “ In dealing with China, we have not thought it necessary to present a detailed report. China was not directly included in your Majesty s Order of Reference ; but we considered it desirable to give some attention to this side of the question ( 1 ). The evidence we have obtained as to the effects of the use of opium in China has been of a conflicting character (2). In this matter responsibility mainly lies with the Chinese Government (j). It is for them to take the first step in any modification of the present Treaty arrangements ( 4). Upon the general question, the position which Great Britain may properly take up is clearly put by Mr. O' Conor, your Majesty s representative at Peking, in his covering letter addressed to your Commission. He says : — 1 If the use of the drug in - China depended on the supply received from India, it might be a practical question what measures could or ought to be taken to discourage its importa- tion. But this is not the issue. The quantity of opium grown in Commissioners' Conclusions , and Counter Considerations. China is increasing enormously. Even the nominal prohibition of the cultivation of the poppy no longer exists throughout the whole Empire , and were the importation of Indian opium to be stopped , China would in a few years so increase her production as not 'only to supply her own wants, but probably to export opium to foreign countries.' ” (p ). (i) The Report states : “ We thought it impossible to form a Con ^ ■'aerations complete judgment on the moral objections raised against the Indian opium revenue system without considering the effects of Voi. vi., p i that trade abroad.” Therefore schedules of questions were sent out, through official channels only. (2) 139 acknowledgments were received, with 129 answers. Of these 6 speak of the habit as good if moderate, 33 harmless if moderate, and 90 as bad. One of the questions asked for an estimate of the proportion of habitues (a) not injured, (b) slightly injured, ( c ) seriously injured by the habit. Classifying the answers received into official medical, private practitioners, missionary medical, consular, Chinese, and general : all these classes except the general give an average return of 50 per cent, and upwards as injured by the habit. To say that the evidence obtained from China “is conflicting” may be true in one sense, but it is a quibble, and is grossly mis- leading. (3) No. This cannot be admitted. (4) See below, page 33. (5) No British magistrate would accept such a plea if made on behalf of a publican charged with supplying drink to a person the worse for liquor 1 “As the result of a searching inquiry, and upon a deliberate review of the copious evidence submitted to us, we feel bound to express our conviction that the movement in England in favour of active interference on the part of the Imperial Parliament for the suppression of the opium habit in India has proceeded from an exaggerated impression as to the nature and extent of the evil to be controlled. The gloomy descriptions presented to British audiences of extensive moral and physical degradation by opium have not been accepted by the witnesses representing the people of India , nor by those most responsible for the government of the country. The Report sets out thirty quotations from witnesses^ counter L c J L _ Considerations. favourable to the opium habit, six somewhat balancing its effects, and not one showing the dark side over and over again brought before the Commission. Relatively to China the opium habit in The Opium Commission Report. 12 India is happily not as yet extensive. It is not alleged to be so. It is alleged and proved that in some districts and towns the evils are both real and great, and that under the system of putting up the traffic to auction it has spread and is spreading. If the habit is allowed to spread, as it has spread in China, the evil must become gigantic in India also. Commissioners’ £ Conclusions. “ IVe may be sensible (i) that , as in the case of the drink duties at home , so in the ana/ogous case of opium in India , the revenue is drawn from a source liable to abuse. Looking, hozuever, at the problem before us from the highest moral standpoint (2), it is something to know that the hand of the ruler is chiefly felt in the way of repression and restriction (j). Counter Considerations. (1) Why (with the section on Burma before them) cannot the Commissioners frankly say they are sensible, &c. (2) It is much to be regretted that the framers of the Report do not enable the public to contemplate more fully their “ highest moral standpoint.” The glimpse is so transient. However “it is something to know that’’ it is associated with “ the way of repression and restriction.” (3) May we understand that the voice of the Commission is intended to strengthen the hand of the ruler in these directions ? The great weight of evidence as well as the memoranda of the two native Royal Commissioners prove that this is needed. Commissioners’ Conclusions. We have already expressed our opinion with reference to the character and sufficiency of the evidence on which the conclusions to tvhich we have been brought depend. We are satisfied that th e examination of more than yoo witnesses afforded to the Commission ample opportunity of learning all the essential facts as to the effects of the use of opium in India, and the feelings of the native population with reference to a policy of prohibition. Counter Considerations. The Commissioners are easily “satisfied.” Mr. Wilson, M.P., puts the pro-opium witnesses at 487, and the anti-opium at 191, the latter including a majority of the native journalists, lawyers, teachers, and professors, the former the great majority of the official classes, titled persons, and landowners. Opinions must vary greatly as to the really representative character attaching to each of these, and as to whether they altogether at all adequately expressed “the feelings of the native population.” Commissioners' 7^ conclusions of the Commission as to Burma have been Conclusions. / . _ _ fully stated in the section of our Report dealing with that province. How the Report Deals with Facts. 1 3 The Barmans are specially susceptible to injury from opium, and there is among them a popular sentiment against the habit. Special regulations have, therefore , been introduced which, short of universal prohibition, seem to us as restrictive as it would be expedie?it for any Government to attempt to enforce. It could not be supposed from this conclusion that the officials,, Counter r r ' Considerations. in Burma have advocated and do still advocate further restriction, and that the Commissioners are simply siding with the Indian Government in refusing it. In the replies adopted at Bombay when the native Royal Commissioners were present, this sentence occurs : — “ The regu- voi. v i., P . 9 lations for the restriction of the consumption of opium may be amended in various particulars. We are not prepared to make recommendations without careful study of details.” The year which elapsed before the report saw the light was not apparently sufficient for the study of these details. The only Vo1 - VI > p- trace of it is a recommendation that the licensing by Government of shops for the manufacture and sale of chandu and madak for smoking should be abandoned in those provinces where such licensing is still maintained. This recommendation is made that the Government may show “that they are in sympathy with public opinion.” In the same connection the Commissioners say, “ We consider that the arrangements for the retail vend of opium in India are sufficiently restrictive.” The two Indian Royal Com- missioners differ from this statement. The conclusions of the majority of the British Commis- sioners are in exact accord with the views of the Indian Govern- ment, whether as regards India, Burma, or China. No exception can be taken to this, other than that the evidence under some of the heads points in a totally different direction ; and that there is no excuse for the continuous one-sidedness of the whole report. The more this is studied the more clearly it becomes an advocate’s brief, and not a judicial finding. Let us see first HOW THE REPORT DEALS WITH FACTS. It is stated in the introductory portion of the report that “ in the later stages of our inquiry we adopted at the request of the Government of India the plan of incorporating in our appendices the abstracts” (of evidence) “in the case of all witnesses tendered 14 The Opium Commission Report. on the part of the Government who attended for examination, but whose examination was not taken owing to the want of time.” I'his is a definite statement, but anyone who studies the volumes of evidence carefully may see that it is not correct. At Ajmere 31,747 Mr. Dane said of certain witnesses : “I do not ask that their abstracts may be brought into the appendix, because I do not think it is necessary.” Some of these abstracts, however, deserve a passing notice, and may illustrate why Mr. Dane on the part of the Indian Government did not wish to have them recorded. They were presented to the Commissioners and are in Mr. Wilson’s possession. Pyari Lall, manager of Mya Ram Jagan Nath, says : “ Under existing custom we get special profits from opium that we do not get from other crops : First one rupee profit on every four seers weighed, which we get by manipulation of the weights ; second, we pay for each four seers taken, one rupee less than the current market rate.” This gentleman closes his statement by remarking, “ Without it most people get ill, and are incapable of doing their work.” Bishan Ram, Manotidar, says, “ In the Wart Tahsilo it is the recognised thing that the manotidar, by manipulation of the weights , by short payments , and by charges for interest, makes a profit of R.4-2 on every five seers of opium brought to him by a cultivating client. These special profits we should of course lose if the cultivation of the poppy were prohibited.” In the same way some of the most interesting tables of figures estimating the compensation that would become payable in the event of prohibition have escaped from the record reserved for others. The Prime Minister of Bundi, after showing that the average area in poppy for the last six years was 1,871 acres, and that it had been a decreasing area, claimed compensation on an average of 5,104! and this had been allowed by the political officer. The produce of the whole State had been 93 rnaunds in 1893, a steady fall from 697 rnaunds six years before. The claim for compensation is made on an average of 1,007 ntaunds ! Statistical tables set forth in official documents are supposed to be above suspicion. On page 12, however, a table is given to Voi. vi., parti, show that a “sudden apparent increase” in the consumption of opium in Gujarat eighteen years ago was in reality due to the sub- stitution of licit opium for contraband. “ The results are to be traced in the following table.” The table shows the totals as follows : — How the Report Deals < with Facts. 5 Average of 3 years 1874-7 1877-8 1878-9 1879-80 1892-3 lbs. 4,490 4,068 13,417 36 , 35 2 40,413 The distinct inference is that when once the licit opium had gained the day, the consumption became regular and normal. The real facts are that between 1880 and 1892 the consumption Vo1 - 1 v -p- 280 shot up to 65,929 lbs. and then fell again. The figures deliberately omitted vitiate the whole table so far as the meaning attached to it in the report is concerned. Stress has been laid in previous pages on the use of opium for promoting lust and vice. The evidence in proof, which came from a large number of pro-opium as well as anti-opium witnesses, is conclusive in its character, and is not seriously questioned. The Commissioners say “ this motive may be common in some large towns,” but they dismiss the whole matter in five lines with the remark : “ The subject is examined at length by Sir William Vo1 - VI -> p- 18 Roberts in his memorandum.” On turning to Sir William Roberts it will be seen that he in his turn dismisses the subject in thirteen lines without contesting the fact and without giving any references. In this most evasive manner the Commissioners dismiss the immoral use of the drug from their consideration. In paragraph 70, millowners are stated to have given evidence voi. vi„ P . 19 “ to the general effect that they had never to dismiss a hand for excess in opium taking.” Three references for this statement are given. The first witness said, “ There are very few opium eaters,” 22 ,8oo and spoke of opium as a bad thing. The second said five to ten 2S , I34 per cent, take opium, and afterwards said this referred to some mills only. The third said nearly all his Mussulman weavers at 25,150-2 Broach used opium more or less, but he gave no idea as to the numbers, and could not express any opinion as to its consumption a6 6;j6 8 among his mill hands in Bombay. Now the introduction of mill- owners as a class into this paragraph of the report is to prove “ the general prevalence of moderation.” The three references given only prove that the use of opium by mill hands is in itself very exceptional. But before millowners as such are quoted in support of any proposition, their evidence should be collected in its entirety. Let us for the sake of fairness put by the three references already given, the following: — “As a rule working , 3 , ig2 people have no habit of using opium. Examination of people employed in a mill will prove this.” “ Amongst a class of people 2 6 ,ogo called the Dheds, who are the principal operatives in the mills, the use of opium is almost unknown.” “ From careful enquiries The Opium Commission Report. 16 25,081 25,116 25 1 19 Vol. VI., p. I Q. 528 Vol. VI., p. 19,980 amongst the 1,400 operatives working in the Alliance Mill, which I have the honour to represent, I am informed that there are none who use opium.” “ How many hands do you employ ? ” “ Be- tween 3,500 and 4,000. I do not find a single one taking opium.” It is not too much to say that this citation of millowners to prove “ the general prevalence of moderation ” is grossly misleading. 16 Paragraph 60 starts with the sweeping statement, “ Weirnd it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prevalence of the use of opium is founded first on the universal tendency amongst mankind to take some form of stimulant with which to comfort or distract themselves.” On the next page the Commissioners say “ the pro- portion of habitual consumers amongst native soldiers is small,” and on the page after that the custom of the country is “ generally opposed to the use of any stimulant” by women. These two statements alone ought to have qualified the above proposition apart from the unquestionable fact that by no stretch whatever of the statistics of consumption in India can the use of opium as a stimulant be treated as other than an exceptional habit, not affect- ing three per cent, of the population at the outside. Mr. T. Stoker, Excise Commissioner for the North-West Provinces and Oudh, said, “ I doubt if the habit is a racial one. I should say that the aboriginal races are not given to opium (except as a medicine.”) It may also be pointed out that Sir William Roberts, who signs the report, takes a diametrically opposite view to the above state- ment in his own memorandum. He there says its use as a stimulant no doubt grew out of its medicinal use, and that the latter is probably still the larger of the two in India. 16 Paragraph 62 deals with the administration of opium to infants. Its value may be estimated by the statement : “ A few witnesses, chiefly missionaries, stated before us that they believed this practice to be productive of great infant mortality.” No reference whatever is made as to the permanent injuries proved to result to children who still lived. (See p. 48 of The Opium Habit.) The Commissioners give seven marginal references to the evidence in support of the above statement. Six of these refer to missionaries. One of them does not relate to mortality at all. There are, on a hasty examination of the evidence, at least twenty-two distinct references by different witnesses to abnormal infant mortality from this cause. Of these only seven are from missionaries (four of whom are medical missionaries). There are at least forty witnesses who speak decidedly of the evils to infants resulting from the habit_ How the Report Deals with Facts. i Of these twelve only are missionaries (most of them medical mis- sionaries). Yet the Commissioners speak of *' a few witnesses, chiefly missionaries.” The child life of India cannot receive much thought or attention from the British public, but it was at least entitled to a fair amount of consideration and an honestly framed verdict from British Commissioners appointed to inquire into conditions which vitally affect it. These have not been given. Paragraph 73, after stating that the information as to opium vol. vi., p being largely used for suicides was based as a rule on “ vague report,” continues : — “ One or two witnesses, however, quoted statistics in support of their opinion.” The section of this pamphlet headed “ Statistics and Suicide ” shows that six witnesses (half of whom were official) quoted statistics in this connection ; and these were given to illustrate, not to exhaust, this description of evidence. The Commissioners say “ the law, as in England, prescribes a formal inquiry and report ” on any sudden or suspicious death. Dr. S. C. Roy stated that only an insignificant number of suicidal deaths come to the knowledge of the authorities, “ post mortem examinations and coroners’ inquests being unknown here except u ote , 3iI in Presidency and Zilla towns, and even there on rare instances.” Miss Greenfield had not known any inquests on the children l6 , supposed to be poisoned. Two official witnesses discredited the death statistics. The Commissioners conclude by saying they “ do not find that opium is to be credited with any special prominence in the history of these unfortunate occurrences.” An instructive com- mentary on this pronouncement is to be found in a paper on “ The necessity for an Act restricting the free sale of poisons in Bengal,” by Surgeon-Captain Evans and Assistant-Surgeon C. Lai Bose, Chemical Examiners to the Government of Bengal, read at the Indian Medical Congress, and published in the Indian Medical Record , 15th February, 1895. They quote official figures to show that suicide by poison is “about nineteen times more prevalent” among the population of Calcutta than the population of England. They say the figures “ show a truly alarming increase in the crime of self-destruction in the municipal area of Calcutta, and become even more significant from the fact that poison now accounts for seventy per cent, of the suicides as against twenty per cent, in 1850.” “ Opium,” they add, “ has been known to be responsible for the majority of cases of suicide.” They recapitulate previous recommendations to restrict the sale of poisons, and conclude by specifically recommending that the extreme limit of the retail sale i8 The Opium Commission Report. of opium should be reduced from 5 tolas (2 0/..) as at present to one-eighth of a tola or 20 grains except to habitual consumers who came provided with a certificate to enable them to purchase more. And they add, “ Either the opium eater must be exposed to a trifling inconvenience, in order to get the quantity he requires, or the danger to the general community at present existing must continue.” Yet the Commissioners speak of this matter as one of vague report ! These illustrations of the way in which the report deals with the matters entrusted to the Commission, both unworthily and unfairly, are taken from the first two sections only out of the nine sections which make up the report. It is not too much to say that the same process of proving specific statements of great importance to be utterly misleading can be continued throughout the whole document. The difficulty is to command the space requisite for confronting the report with the evidence which it ignores or distorts without enlarging this appendix to impracticable dimensions. HOW THE REPORT DEALS WITH PERSONS. It will be convenient now to illustrate the manner in which the majority of the Commissioners have thought fit to refer to some of the anti-opium witnesses who gave evidence before them. Voi. vi. , p. 25 Paragraph 87 states : “On the part of the Society for the Suppres- sion of the Opium Trade the evidence given before us in these provinces was of a limited character At Ajmere we recorded the statements of a medical missionary, I)r. Huntly, who did not go so far as to advocate the prohibition of opium except for medical purposes by law, and of a lady Zenana missionary, both belonging to the U.P. Mission, and also of two missionaries of the Methodist Episcopalian Mission, an American body. . . . There was also a European shopkeeper from Mhow.” No reader of Dr. Huntly’s very interesting and exact evidence will say that he is fairly dealt with here. Let his own 21,298 words reply : “ I have never met a single opium eater who praised it ; I have never seen a proverb or song which recommended or approved it ; and I have never seen a case in which the habit appeared beneficial. A native authority informed me that as a general rule it might be said that the habit deprived men of one- How the Report Deals with Persons. fourth of their usefulness.” As to prohibition by law, Dr. Huntly said : “ 1 should prefer to say that I would recommend to the Commission a policy of discouraging the use of opium. If the policy of non-prohibition be based upon the alleged beneficial action of the drug, I would say that the Commission in recom- mending such a policy were committing a moral wrong.” The Com- missioners omit to give references to the two missionaries belong- ing to “an American body.” They are the Rev. C. PI. Plomer and the Rev. C. W. De Souza. The former stated to the Com- missioners : “ I am a native of India, and have lived all my life in this country.” The latter stated also that he was a native of India, and that his opinion was based on his experience of the people. The reference is not given either to the “ European shopkeeper,” but Mr. Edwin J. Drew is clearly intended. He had lived in India twenty-three years. It does not appear that he has a shop of any kind. He has an ice business, a factory, and employs thirty-five to forty men in wood cutting. He stated that he advanced up to Rs.ioo to such of his men as are not opium eaters to buy carts and bullocks to go into the jungle to bring wood back, but on no account would he advance more than Rs. 15 to an opium eater. To discount two natives of India as belonging to an “American body,” and to disparage a manu- facturer of twenty-three years’ standing in India as a “ Euro- pean shopkeeper ” is unworthy of a Royal Commission ! Let us now turn to some of their quotations. Regarding China it is stated : “ By the majority of the missionaries of ever)' Christian communion in China the use of opium is strongly con- demned. Other missionaries take a less decided view. Of these last two may be quoted ” (of course none of the former). The Rev. W. Ashmore . . . states “ that some men will use opium for years and not show marked results.” What Mr. Ashmore does say is this : “Some men of vigorous vitality will use opium for many years and not show marked results.” He goes on to write : “ ‘ With great injury ’ nearly all of those with whom the habit is fully formed, and whose regular recurrent daily craving has attained the mastery over the man. There is no such thing as an assured moderation. Men are moderate at first, but the desire grows for more. The use of opium beyond any question impairs their effi- ciency in their calling. They are weaker physically, and are wholly unreliable ; their promises and engagements cannot be depended on.” The Report proceeds, “The Rev. A. Bone says : 20 Vo!. VI., Vo!. V., Vol. V. p The Opium Comuiission Report. 1 ‘ 'The effects of opium vary, but it appears to me that the ordinary Chinese have but a poorly developed moral sense on many matters in regard to which the Christian nations of Europe hold decided opinions. The effects of opium, also physically, cover a wide range of experience. Many who smoke but twice or thrice a day do not appear to suffer any physical weakness. I question frequently men who tell me they have smoked for years, and no marks of physical deterioration are very manifest.’” 3. 218 \y hat he really did say was : “ The effects of opium vary in different persons and under different cotiditions The moral influe?ice on men who frequent the opium dens with which I am familiar in Canton cannot but be bad. Moreover opium and gambling dens are often grouped in the same locality , and those who frequent one often are unable to withstand the temptations of the other. Those who become in any sense ‘ victims' of the opium pipe , have their moral sense greatly impaired.- -But it appears tu me,” dec. Mr. Bone says further : “ I never will allow an opium smoker among my crew if I can avoid it.” One other instance of misquoting must suffice (p. 53) : “ We quote the following replies to our question, ‘ If the supply of Indian opium were cut off what would be the effect on opium consumers in China ? ’ The Rev. Dr. Dudgeon : ‘At present it would be without any effect; the • 2 3°- smokers would smoke more of the native.’ ” What Dr. Dudgeon (Dr. Dudgeon is not “Rev.”) really says is this: “At present it would be without any effect ; the smokers would smoke more of the native, but it was not always so. The time has not yet come for forming a decision in regard to what action the Chinese Government or high officials would take in the event of the Indian supply being cut off.” Such methods of quotation can only be accurately described by the word “garbling.” A PRO-INTOXICANT REPORT. The Report throughout is favourable to stimulant habits, and to the non-medical use of intoxicants. This could occasion no surprise if it dealt with Western populations from the standpoint of Western thought, though even in Europe religion, science, and experience are making great inroads on the old beliefs in the strengthening properties of strong drinks. But to bring up the stimulant beliefs of Europe as buttresses to the opium revenue of India is a proceeding which must be viewed with less and less A Pro-intoxicant Report. satisfaction as the years go on. Over and over again it is stated by the majority as a serious fact only to be mentioned under a stern sense of duty, and with some reluctance, that witnesses opposed to opium as an indulgence were also opposed to alcohol. This grave state of things it appears was true of the medical wit- nesses, the missionaries, and “nearly all ” of the native witnesses. “ We are bound to take notice of the circumstance,” say the Com- missioners plaintively. But they seem to forget that they them- selves acknowledge elsewhere that the religious ideals of India are ascetic ideals, and that the people generally are abstemious. There can be no doubt that the abstainers from alcohol represent the majority of their countrymen, as well as the best elements of native India, and it is absolutely indefensible on the part of the Commission to refer to them as if they represented a small minority, whose opinions hardly counted. No one can read the native evidence without recognising that if the enquiry in India had been extended to the whole system of raising revenue from intoxi- cants the volume of evidence against such a system would have been decidedly larger. Mr. G. D. M. Mehtaji put the matter strongly in saying : “ If the Commission had been entrusted with the duty of enquiring about alcohol, opium, and ganja, all of them together, I am posi- tively sure that Indians would have unanimously come forward to support theproposed curtailment and gradual abolition of the opium traffic”; but it represents a view largely held. The evidence shows beyond all question that the fear that opium was to be suppressed in the interests of alcohol, was skilfully used during the visit of the Commission to India. After pressing the witnesses in India to enlarge on the evils of drunkenness at the expense of the ills of the opium stupor, the Commissioners now come forward to dis- credit the evidence of the men who condemned both alike. Even as regards European ideas the Commissioners forget that the world keeps moving on. Bishop Thoburn said in his evidence : “ When I first came to India nearly all your doctors taught me, and taught us all thirty-four years ago, that we could not live in this country without alcoholic drinks. Now the majority of doctors say other- wise.” The Commissioners say they cannot “ interfere with the innermost concerns of personal life without a clear pronouncement of native opinion in favour of such a step.” For long years there was the clearest possible pronouncement by the people of Burma, 22 The Opium Commission Report. and the Indian Government turned a deaf ear until it was com- pelled by pressure from Great Britain to listen at last. Even now the Commissioners talk of restriction in Burma as “an experi- ment,” and refuse to listen to the clear pronouncement there for the registration of foreign consumers. But one of the most strik- ing features of the Report throughout is its persistent ignoring of the trend of native opinion against opium, as compared with that of European opinion. The following table shows the relative pro- portions of European and native witnesses of similar classes on the pro-opium and anti-opium sides respectively : — European. Native. Pro. Anti. Neuter. Pro. Anti. Neuter. yp Financially Interested ( La)idowners, Crc.) i4 — — ff 8 1 14 60 I 3 J Officials ( Cii II and Military ). Iff 5 2 39 9 4 79 5 2 lyg Sundry , and General. 1 6 6 3 73 73 8 2 5 r 54 45 Qualified Doctors. Official. Independent. 11 1 3 11 127 15 3 ° It is thus the Europeans in India who chiefly provide the real opium garrison of that country, and who defend the habit most hotly, whilst taking care not to become addicted to it themselves. HOW THE REPORT DEALS WITH CHINA. Not only is the use of alcohol in England continually advanced to ward off all reflections on opium swallowing in India, but it is also pressed into the field to palliate opium smoking in China. How the Report Deals with China. 23 No doubt the Commissioners when they come to consider China are in a very awkward corner. The acknowledgment even escapes their lips that “ It is evident that the position of the Vol VI p 6o Government of India in relation to the trade in Bengal opium is to some extent invidious.” This reflection alone might have induced a pause before announcing that the effects of opium smoking in China may be fairly compared to those of alcoholic liquors in the United Kingdom. Even if it were so, and the Government manu- factured and sold the alcohol simply and solely for the sake of gain, it is hardly probable that such an invidious position could be long maintained. But on what grounds do the Commissioners say the two habits in the two countries are fairly comparable ? The Commissioners assert that in the British Consular service in y 0 i. vi., P . 5 China the prevailing opinion js that “opium smoking in moderation is not harmful, and that moderation is the rule,” and further that “the medical opinions were in general accord with those of the Consular body.” Let us test these two assertions. Twenty-one Consuls send replies. Of these, Vice-Consul vol. v., P . 216 Bourne says : “The regular habit is bad in so far as it hampers a man, making him almost as much dependent on opium as on food.” Mr. H. Cockburn believes “ the number of those who Voi. v., P . 233 smoke much more opium than is good for them is much larger in proportion than that of the corresponding class amongst consumers of alcohol at home.” Consul Carles : “ So far as I have seen the Voi v„ P . 262 effect of opium smoking is prejudicial, morally, physically, and socially, but in widely different degrees according to the class of the consumer. Physically and morally the poorest classes suffer the most.” Consul Bullock : “ The Chinese so far as I knoware unani- vol. v., P . 266. mous in agreeing that there is someloss of physical poweroccasioned by opium smoking. . . . When these uninjured smokers have continued the practice for years, nearly all of them will have sunk into class II. There can be moderation, but it is difficult to preserve, more so than with alcohol.” Consul Watters quotes an English doctor of long experience as saying, “ On the poor Vo1 - v - p- 2 / 6 who have irregular employment and are badly fed, the deleterious effects of opium smoking are well marked.” Consul Allen : “ The voi. v., P . 280 opium trade brought three evils in its train (1) injury to the con- sumer, (2) injury to the wealth of the country, (3) injury to peace and order. ... It increases the sum of human misery.” Consul Hausser : “ Morally the effect of opium is generally voi. v., P . 308 deteriorating. . . . Physically the effects seem to be loss of 24 The Opium Commission Report. appetite, want of energy, dull and sluggish intellect — except when fortified by the drug. Socially the effect is disastrous for the poor Voi. v., P . 3 og man.” Consul Ford judges thirty per cent, use it without any injury, forty per cent, with but slight injury, thirty per cent, with Voi v., P . 321 great injury.” Consul Hopkins: “ I think that the general opinion of the Chinese is that all heavy opium smoking and that nearly all regular smoking is more or less injurious or objectionable.” Voi. v., P . 323 Consul Hurst : “ The habit is undoubtedly very insidious, and it is difficult to use it within the bounds of moderation. The habit saps the energies and vitality of the nation.” Consul Mansfield : voi. v., P . 336 “ It is to be deplored that the populations of the towns in this district are so much addicted to opium smoking.” Consul Fraser Voi. v., p. 33S estimates that thirty per cent, of the adult males are consumers, and that twenty-five per cent, suffer injury. Three Consuls out of the twenty-one do not answer the questions asked. Of the re- maining eighteen, twelve are quoted above. The Commissioners are not entitled to assert “the prevailing opinion” of the Consuls to be something which they cannot possibly verify. But there is another test of the accuracy of their assertion. Eleven of the Consuls forward estimates of the number of consumers “without injury,” “with slight injury,” “with great injury,” and the figures total up to 457, 45, and 13 '9 per cent, respectively. Their pre- vailing opinion is, therefore, that the practice is injurious to the majority of smokers, and the assertion in the Report is in direct contradiction to the evidence. The second statement of the Com- missioners that “ the medical opinions ” were in accord with the Consular is true, but in the opposite sense to that intended. (See pp. 89 and 90 ante). Without injury. Slight injury. Great injury. 10 medical missionaries’ estimate.. n - 8 187 527 j 2 non-missionary medical men.... 38'2 36 227 The latter figures alone absolutely condemn the use so carelessly made by the Commissioners of their testimony, and show the Report to be unworthy of credence in these important particulars. The evidence is overwhelming that the enslavement of the victims of opium in China is more absolute than that of the victims of drink in England, and that it is rapidly undermining the vigour and power of the nation. It should be noted further that the Report compares opium swallowing in India and opium smoking in China both, to the drinking of alcohol in Britain, after accepting the unani- A Pro-intoxicant Report. 2 5 mous verdict of India that opium smoking is a pernicious and degrading vice ! India condemns opium smoking, and will have none of it. Native states have already instituted penal laws against it. The native Royal Commissioners and Mr. H. J. Wilson advise making it penal throughout India. The majority of the British Commissioners recommend that the Government should abandon the licensing of shops for the manufacture and sale of opium specially prepared for smoking ; and yet for the sake of revenue they recommend the same Government to go on manu- facturing and selling the drug for smoking purposes in China, where it has been proved beyond all question to be the source of infinite degradation and mischief. They “ agree in not recommending any action tending to the destruction of the trade.” A mysterious sentence intimates that if at any time the Chinese Government declares a wish to prohibit the import, “ we (the Commission) shall hold ourselves at liberty to reconsider it.” How the world is to know of such reconsidera- tion is not stated. “ The Commission ceased of course to exist as soon as its report was presented.” The mistakes and misstatements scattered over the Report like snowflakes drift into a heap when it reaches the subject of China. There is hardly a single paragraph that gives the im- pression of having been calmly and carefully checked over with the evidence on which it is presumably based. The extract from Lord Kimberley’s dispatch of 22nd January, 1885, stating that “ the agreement now under negotiation is of the Chinese voi. vi., F . Government’s own proposing, and includes all that they desire,’ emboldens the Commissioners to say : “ The existing regula- tions therefore must be taken to be in accordance with the wishes of the Chinese Government.” But a reference to the text of the dispatch shows that the construction which any ordinary reader would put upon this, is a misapprehension of the facts of the case. The satisfaction of the Chinese Government had reference only to the details of the Additional Article of 1885 (See below, p. 34.) as compared with the regulations previously in force, and does not apply to the general question of the import of opium. The Report continues : “In 1897 the Chinese Government could give notice of a revision of the tariff, &c. . . to take effect from 1898. This is incorrect. The Chinese Government cannot give their six months’ notice before the 26th June, 1898. The negotia- tions might then linger (as in the last case) for years, and the Indian l6 The Opium Commission Report. Vol. VI., ] Yol. I., p. Government has virtually given notice already that it is not willing to give China a free hand in the matter. (See Evidence of Sir David Barbour quoted at p. 34.) Twenty-seven witnesses were examined and cross examined as to China in London. Twenty- two of them were hostile to the opium habit. The Report passes by all of these witnesses but stops to quote from a written state- >■ 1 >9 ment handed in at that time. The quotation so distinguished is from an advocate of the drug who was never examined, but whose written opinions are given twice over in different places, and who is said in one place to have been formerly a very large importer of opium. SEPARATE REPORTS. Sir William Roberts contributes a curious paper on the medical aspects of the opium habit in India. It ought not to be overlooked by any who exalt intoxicants and desire to rehabilitate them under the pleasing name of “ euphoric agents.” The key- note is that nobody is any the worse for indulging in them “ pro- vided they keep within their tolerance.” Unfortunately Sir William does not help the world to any knowledge of what the load line of safety is. Everyone must ascertain this for himself, and take all the risks of shipwreck in doing so. The foundation stone of Sir William’s opinions on the opium habit is to be found in his assertion of the higher tolerance of Indians than of Europeans for opium. On this the main superstructure of the paper rests. It is a little disappointing that under these circumstances only one piece of evidence is brought forward in support of this foundation principle, viz., Dr. Crombie’s remark that up country ayahs accus- tomed to give opium to infants, give a fretful English child the dose they would give to their own child, and it dies. But surely this proves nothing more than that the native children have got used to the habit by degrees, and this is expressly stated by other witnesses. There is no other reference given, or any allusion even to the light thrown on this phase of the question from Burma, the Straits, or China. As previously stated in this pamphlet, page 47, the weight of evidence appears to be decidedly against Sir William Roberts’ theory. With regard to malaria, Sir William Roberts says the reason why “ medical men in India did not prescribe opium for the cure and prevention of malarial fevers ” is that “it could not be so used without the most serious risk of narcotic poisoning.” From its paucity of references this paper Report op Mr. Henry J. I Vi /son , M.P. 27 must be regarded as a personal statement of opinion, not as a marshalling of the medical evidence. Memorandum II. is the first of a series of historical papers on the opium question in India and China by Sir James Lyall and Mr. Dane. Mr. Haridas Veharidas gives some very divergent conclusions from the majority of the British Commissioners in a separate memorandum. He says : “ It strikes the people of this country as unfair that before any attempt is made to relieve India from the effects of alcohol ” a movement should be made to suppress the use “ of a stuff like opium, which is admittedly less harmful so far as India is concerned.” He suggests “that an official com- munication might be sent from the British Government to the Chinese Government informing the latter that any action on their part towards the stoppage of the importation of Indian opium into China would be unhampered by the treaty obligations entered into by them with the British Government.” He believes from the evidence that the cultivators of the poppy “ have suffered in the interests of the monoply. The zeal of the officers engaged on the monopoly establishment, with some exceptions, appears to have been mostly directed to secure the interests of Government.” He recommends that the cultivators should be distinctly notified “that they are not in any way bound to cultivate opium.” He thinks “ the Vaids and Hakims ” (native physicians) may “ be much more safely entrusted with dispensing opium than the common ignorant opium farmers or vendors under the present system.” He thinks also “the system of local option against the free use of opium might be introduced in India as a tentative measure.” “ Opium smoking is generally condemned.” “ A strict law should be made prohibiting opium smoking in any form and under any circumstances, and thus frustrating the attempts of the lovers of opium smoking as well as those interested in the opium trade to escape from its clutches.” REPORT OF MR. HENRY J. WIRSON, M.P. The dissent or minority Report of Mr. Henry J. Wilson, M.P., is a clear, concise, and straightforward document. It bears the evidences of extraordinary application to the subject, and compresses more facts into its fourteen pages than any forty pages of the majority Report. It gives full references with great exacti- The Opium Commission Report. tude Whilst the majority confine their quotations from the evi- dence to passages in support of their own conclusions, Mr. Wilson in his dissent and its appendix quotes from both sides to enable the reader to judge. The Commission was appointed to enquire into the effects of a manufacture and traffic carried on by the Indian Government. It was bound, therefore, to observe an honourable independence of that Government in prosecuting its enquiries. It did nothing of the kind. Mr. Wilson was to all appearances the one Commissioner who endeavoured to assert and to maintain his independence, and his Report bears witness to this throughout. Mr. AA'ilson writes : “ The anti-opiumist witnesses who were natives of India were, generally speaking, not equal to Voi. vi,, p. 137 the pro-opiumists in wealth and social position, but were not on that account less able to represent the habits and opinions of the great mass of their fellow-countrymen. This class includes a majority of the native journalists, lawyers, teachers, and professors.” Mr. AYilson sums up his conclusions by recommending the sup- pression of the opium trade for other than medical purposes. His Report is published in easily available form, and should be studied by all persons inte;ested in the subject.* Three documents by Mr. Wilson are also published, which closely affect the proceedings P . 160 of the Commission and the value of them. The first is a letter to Lord Brassey. Lord Brassey in January, 1895, wrote two letters to Mr. Wilson, deprecating any prolonged discussion over the Report, and pointing out that Mr. AVilson should state his own views in a minority Report. Lord Brassey also expressly stated that “ having received two communications from the Secretary of State within the last few days, I feel that my duty calls for some decided course of action. . . I shall in any case relieve the Commission from further collective work on the 26th.” Mr. AAfilson replied that “believing full examination and consideration was the usual course, I was prepared to give all the time needful for the purpose.” He added he was not willing to discuss a few statements here and there, and “ must therefore confine myself, as you suggest, to a statement of my own views, some of which, I believe are in accordance with those of Mr. Pease.” At the next meeting Mr Wilson referred to this letter, “ and to Lord Brassey’s desire that I should abstain from discussion. Lord Brassey intimated that I had correctly stated his wishes.” Four other colleagues concurred. It will hardly be credited by those who have not. See Advertisement on Cover. The Maharaja of Darbhanga’s Supplemental Report. 29 traced the proceedings of the Commission carefully that after all this the majority regret (par. 274) that in the discussions on the report they “ were not placed in possession of the views of our colleague ” ! The second document is a careful memorandum on the atti- tude of the authorities in India. One of the most striking para- graphs is the following : — “ Four days later a letter from Lord Lansdowne, then Viceroy of India, to Lord Brassey, Chairman of the Commission, was passed round to the members for perusal. It contained a statement in favour of the existing opium system, and against interference with that system as likely to lead to serious trouble. This appeared to me a departure from the judicial attitude which might be expected from Her Majesty’s re- presentative.” Mr. Wilson concludes thus : — “ 16. In view of the various incidents which came to my knowledge, and some of which are here set forth, I am driven to the conclusion that the authorities in India have not pursued their declared course of enabling the Commission to fully ascertain the actual facts.” It is perhaps worth noting that this memorandum was set up by the Queen’s printers in the same type as Mr. Wilson’s Report. When the papers passed into the hands of the Secretary of the Commis- sion it was reset in small type. Mr. Wilson’s last document is hidden away after the Index, and between a glossary and errata at the end of Vol. VII. It is dated 5th Dec., 1894. It complains that “ no minutes of the Commission have been kept or are at any rate now available ” ; that the two Indian Royal Commissioners were not properly invited to come to England and consider the Report ; also that they had not been promptly furnished with sections of the draft Report ; and that in publishing a correspon- dence in which Mr. Wilson was concerned the Secretary had on his own responsibility ignored a request made by Mr. Wilson. The replies from Lord Brassey and Mr. Baines do not rebut these specific statements. THE MAHARAJA OF DARBHANGA’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. The Maharaja of Darbhanga’s supplemental Report was re- ceived on 6th May, 1895. He suggests : “In Burma, certain restrictions have been put on the sale of opium by the Local Government, and I think that in other parts of India also the Local Governments as well as local bodies like the District Boards should be empowered to frame rules for the sale of opium according to the circumstances of the different localities.” . . . “ I would, 30 The Opium Commission Report. however, urge that opium should be sold in bottles or phials labelled ‘ poison,’ and the minimum dose which is likely to be fatal should also be legibly printed in the vernacular on these labels. In some parts of the country it is a common practice for mothers to give small doses of opium to young children. I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether this practice of giving opium to young infants is at all necessary for the benefit of the children. I will content myself with pointing out the fact that opium is, unlike alcohol, a deadly poison if taken in excess, and is a dangerous weapon in the hands of ignorant persons. A witness at Lucknow gave evidence to the effect that an infant brother of his was killed by an accidental overdose of opium administered by his own mother. My suggestion to label phials or bottles in which opium is sold would be of assistance in reducing the chances of such accidents to a minimum.” As to opium smoking, the Maharaja says he is in agreement with the prohibition views of Mr. Haridas. STRANGE HISTORIES. It is not practicable here to enter into criticisms of the new histories of the opium question written for the occasion by officials and ex-officials of the Indian Government which fill up the larger part of the two volumes of the Report, omitting of coursethe Index. Their appearance only confirms the proofs that the procedure of this Commission is quite unprecedented. If a Royal Commission on the Temperance question filled out its report with voluminous histories of the movement from the pens of writers officially con- cerned in the trade, they would only be regarded with wonder and amusement. On pp. 85-7 of The Opium Habit in the East attention was called to the fact that Lord Brassey had stopped two indepen- dent witnesses from giving evidence on the opium war with China. And yet 185 pages on this subject are added to the Report from the pen of Mr. Dane, who has acted as the agent of the Indian Govern- ment throughout this enquiry ! No amount of whitewash leaves this sad history clean. An extract from a letter from Captain Elliot to Lord Palmerston on the 16th November, 1839, shows that English officials used as strong language then, as any anti- Voi vii., P . 2so opium advocates do now, viz. : “ If my private feelings were of the least consequence upon questions of a public and important nature, assuredly I might justly say that no man entertains a deeper In Conclusion. detestation of the disgrace and sin of this forced traffic on the coast of China than the humble individual who signs this dispatch.” IN CONCLUSION. The majority report is doubtless strong when it speaks of the financial and adminstrative difficulties attending the abolition of the traffic. It is culpably weak when it ignores the evils of the opium habit : and would fain assume it to be beneficial on the evidence of men who for the most part scrupulously avoid adopting the habit themselves. The report should have been drafted by independent writers : and not by officers of the Indian Government. The issue remains as at first , between morality and finance. After Lord Shaftesbury first arraigned the opium trade in Parliament he made this entry in his diary, “very remarkable — not one person even attempted to touch the morality of the question : that seemed to be tacitly but univer- sally surrendered.” The Times commended his speech as far more statesmanlike than those by which it was opposed, whose arguments it said amounted to this : “that morality and religion, and the happiness of mankind, and friendly relations with China, and new markets for British manufacturers were all very fine things in their way, but that the opium trade was worth to the Indian Government fi~i, 200,000 a year ; and ^1,200,000 was a large sum of money which it would not be easy to make up from any other source without offending somebody in India.” The 6 th April, 1843 same criticism applies as justly now to the report of the Royal Commission : only that the income is three fold what it was then ; and the Times newspaper in its turn contends that we cannot afford to buy “morality and religion, and the happiness of mankind, etc., at so dear a price.” The nature of the opium conflict in the East, is well illustrated by a speech of Lord Lans- downe, in reply to a memorial from Burman residents at Rangoon on the 20th November, 1893. The Viceroy said, “Gentlemen, I pioneer have listened attentively to the prayer of your memorial. Let me Nov ' Z2 - if 93 say at once, that there is no difference between us as to the value of temperance, or the desirability of inculcating it by precept and example to the people of this country. ... I rejoice to hear that you approve of the measures taken some time ago with the object of restricting the consumption of ganja, a drug which is admitted to have a particularly deleterious effect, and more 3 2 The Opium Commission Report. recently for assimilating the regulations obtaining in this part of the province in regard to the sale of opium to those which obtain in Upper Burma. The newly issued regulations are of a very stringent kind, and I confess, that speaking for myself, I did not agree to them without grave misgivings. Time only can show whether they will work successfully, and whether they will receive such measure of support from the people as to preclude their failure. I have always been one of those who are keenly alive to the danger of a restriction of personal freedom, with the object of compelling the practice of morality : but I recognise that such interference is to some extent inevitable.” It will hardly be credited that the Departmental Commission appointed by the Indian Government to enquire into the licensed sale of hemp drugs, have reported in favour of re-introducing the sale of ganja into Burma for the Hindoos in that country. The Indian Government should do more than recognise in words the desira- bility of inculcating temperance both “ by precept and example ” to the people of the East The growth, manufacture, and sale of opium as an indulgence, and for the sake of gain, is a standing witness against them. The majority of the British Commissioners have unhappily thrown their influence into the scale on behalf of the manifold evils of the existing system. The more their Report is considered and carefully compared with the evidence, the sooner will it cease to impede the advance of the moral forces that make for righteousness. SUMMARY. In the opium controversy, the Indian Government, as the grower, manufacturer, and vendor of the opium, is the defendant in the suit. The Commission journeyed under its auspices, was staffed by its servants, had its evidence, in the main, collected and supervised by the Government ; and presented a Report drawn up by the pens of its officials. The Report resembles an advocate’s brief : not a judicial summing up. The quantity of Indian opium exported to China and the far East, as compared with that consumed in India, bears, the Commissioners say, “the proportion of about 12 to 1.” The Commissioners only visited the country which consumed the one part; where the pecuniary gains are greatest, and the consumption with its attendant evils is least. Is China Free. 3 The two native Royal Commissioners and Mr. H. J. Wilson, M.P., agree in three far reaching recommendations restrictive of the sale of opium in India. There is a great mass of uncontradicted evidence showing that further restriction in India, in the nature of an efficient Poisons’ Act, is urgently called for. The medical witnesses who defend the opium habit, (apart from the use of the drug as an occasional medicine), do not recommend it to their families or friends. The opium habit is proved to be resorted to largely for vicious purposes. Opium smoking is universally condemned throughout India. The manufacture and sale of Indian opium for China is solely for smoking. The evidence collected by the Commissioners through official channels as to the effects of opium smoking in China, is overwhelming in its condemnation of the habit. As the result therefore of the Commission, the purposes for which the opium manufacture and trade are mainly carried on by the Indian Government, stand condemned both in India and China. No trade which is morally wrong can be politically right. IS CHINA FREE? The foregoing being the last chapter out of Mr. Rowntree’s pamphlet,* some points referred to in previous chapters have not been repeated in this, but one misstatement in the Majority Report is too important to be omitted here. The Commissioners on page 61 state, “ In regard io the admission of Indian opium , China is now , at all events , a perfectly free agent! Is this supported by the evidence ? Some anti-opium witnesses having stated that China is not “The Opium Habit in the East,” See footnote at p. 2 of cover. 34 The Opium Commission Report. free, the late Sir Thomas Wade, formerly British Minister at Peking, was questioned by the Commission respecting the state- ment which Sir James Fergusson, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, made on behalf of the Government in the House of Commons in the Opium debate of ioth April, 1891. Sir James Fergusson had said, “The Chinese' at any time may terminate the treaty on giving twelve months’ notice, and to protect themselves they may increase the duty [on opium] to any extent they please, or they may exclude it altogether.” Q. Sir Thos. Wade replied, “ I have not read, to my knowledge, anything in the Treaty or correspondence that would bear out such a statement as that.” He added : “ But 1 do not mean to say that it is not true.” This addition appears to have been made only because Sir Thomas Wade was unwilling positively to con- tradict the statement officially made by Sir James Fergusson. Certain it is, that no document was referred to by Sir Thomas Wade or any other witness, corroborating Sir James Fergusson’s statement. On the contrary, in pursuance of a promise already made by the Chairman of the Commission that the matter should Rc App.' iv!* * be referred to the Foreign Office, a letter from the Foreign Office was received, which states, “ This arrangement ” (the Additional Article of 1885 to the Chefoo Convention of 1874,) “was to remain binding for four years, after which either party might give twelve months’ notice to terminate it; and in the event of its termination, the arrangements under the regulations attached to the Treaty of Tientsin (1858) should be revived.” The effect of reverting to the regulations under the Treaty of Tientsin would simply be, that the Chinese Government, whilst theoretically free to impose any internal taxation on opium, would lose the advan- tages afforded them by the Chefoo Convention, which secures them against smuggling. When the feasibility of thus reviving the Tientsin Treaty was suggested to Sir Thomas Wade, he said, Q 1.350- “You could not do China a greater disservice It would be depriving China of so much revenue, and it would be ensuring an amount of maladministration of which, I think, you would be sorry to realise the result.” What the Indian Government would say, if it were seriously proposed to confer upon China the freedom which Sir James Fergusson erroneously declared her already to possess, may be gathered from the evidence given by Sir David Barbour, Finance Voi. 11., 0. z.ojoM inister of India, at Calcutta : “If we abandon our treaty rights Is China Free. 35 in China, and allow the Chinese to impose any import duty they please on Indian opium, the whole, or practically the whole, of the Indian revenue from the export of opium to China will be lost to India.” The statement, therefore, of the Commissioners that, “ in regard to the admission of Indian opium, China is now, at all events, a perfectly free agent,” is in direct contradiction to the evidence. If, indeed, Sir James Fergusson’s declaration had been officially communicated to China, it might be possible to contend that China is virtually, though not formally, free to exclude opium. But this is not the case ; and, in the absence of such communi- cation, it would be contrary to diplomatic usage for the Chinese Government to take official notice of it — just as it would be improper for the British Government to take official notice of the terms of a message sent by President Cleveland to the American Congress. It has already been shown (p. 27) that Mr. Haridas Vehar- idas, in his separate memorandum, has urged that such a com- munication should be sent to China. Mr. H. J. Wilson, M.P., has reported to the same effect (Minute of Dissent, par. 19.) Sir James Lyall tells us that he “at one time thought that this Com- mission ought to recommend that a distinct intimation should be made to China as to her freedom of action in the question,” though he subsequently came to the conclusion that “ such action is clearly unnecessary, and if so, it is unadvisable, as the Chinese are likely to misunderstand it.” British citizens who are not Anglo-Indian officials will find it hard to believe that British diplomacy is unequal to the task of making the Chinese Govern- ment understand the wish of the people of this country that they should have perfect freedom for any honest endeavour to put down the enslaving vice which is desolating their land. Historical Note App. A. par. 58 Report, Vol VII, p. 28. SOCIETY for the SUPPRESSION OF THE OPIUM TRADE RECENT PUBLICATIONS. THE OPIUM HABIT IN THE EAST : A Study of the Evidence and Report of the Royal Commission on Opium. By Joshua Rowntree, formerly M.P. for Scarborough. Price 6d., Post Free 8^d. AN ANALYSIS OF THE OPIUM COMMISSION REPORT. Ex- tracted from the foregoing. Price One Penny, Post Free i|d, THE OPIUM QUESTION. By Joshua Rowntree. Reprinted from the Friends' Quarterly Examiner, Oct. 1895. Price id., Post Free 1 J;d. ROYAL COMMISSION ON OPIUM The Minute of Dissent presented by Mr. Henry J. Wilson, M.P., with Appendix, Memorandum on the Attitude of the Authorities in India, Portrait, and Index. Price One Penny. Post Free, i^d. THE DEBATE ON THE OPIUM QUESTION: May 24th, 1895, re- printed from the Official Parliamentary Report, with Division List ; also Mr. H. J. Wilson's Reply to the Secretary of State for India, delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society. Price Sixpence. Post Free i£d. THE SPEECH OF MR. JOHN E. ELLIS, M.P., exposing the unpre- cedented and unconstitutional procedure of the Commission and the Indian Government with regard to it. Extracted from the foregoing. 3s 6d. per 100, post free. THE FRIEND OF CHINA. The Organ of the Society. Quarterly. Price Threepence. Sent free to all annual subscribers of 2s. 6d. and upwards. Published for the Society by P. S. King & Son, Parliamentary Booksellers, 12, King Street, Westminster, S.W. Contributions in aid of the Society’s work will be gratefully re- ceived by the Hon. Secretary, who will also forward any of the above publications. Cheques to be crossed “ Barclay & Co.” Office : Finsbury House, Blomfield Street, LONDON, E.C.