M:^- iV^tr^ m ^■ ms^; &*■< 4 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING STATED BY MISSIONAEIES. Rev. F. W. Baller. Rev. W. H. Collins. Dr. Galt. Dr. Gauld. Rev. D. Hill. Rev. G. John. Dr. Maxwell. Rev. J. McCarthy. Rev. A. E, Moule. Rev. J. Sadler. BRITISH OFFICIALS. Sir R. Alcock, Sir Thomas Wade, and others. CHINESE OFFICIALS. Li Hung-chang, Wen-seang, AND others. . Archbishops : Canterbury, York. Bishops; Members of Parliament, and others. it}) ^Illustrations. LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1882. CONTENTS. PAGES Introduction, ....... 5-16 Proceedings at Conference on Opium-Smoking, . . 17-30 Speakers. — Lord Polwarth (chairman) ; Eev. VV. H. Collins, M.R.C.S. ; Dr. Gauld ; Dr. Maxwell; Dr. Gait; Eev. A. E. Moule ; Rev. J. Sadler, and others. Proceedings at Public Meeting on Opium- Smoking. Testimony of Rev. David Hill, . . . . Sixteen years missionary in China. Testimony of Rev. Arthur E. Moule, B.D., Twenty -oyie years missionary in China. Testimony of Dr. Gauld, . . . p • Sixteen years medical missionary in China. Testimony of J. Gait, Esq., M.R.C.S.E., . Formerly in charge of the Church Missionary Society's Opium Hospital at Hang-choio. Testimony of Rev. F. W. Bailer, . . . . Eight years missionary in China. Testimony of Rev. W. H. Collins, M.R.C.S., Twenty-three years medical missionary in China. Testimony of Rev. James Sadler, . . . . Sixteen years missionary to the Chinese. Speech of Lord Polwarth, . „ Mr. Donald Matheson, „ Mr. T. A. Denny, „ Rev. J. McCarthy, Testimony of Dr. Maxwell, Eight years medical missionary in China. Testimony of Rev. J. McCarthy, . Tioelve years missionary in China. Testimony of Rev. Griffith John, . Twenty-six years missionary in China. 31 37 40 42 44 46 48 50 50 52 52 56 61 APPENDIX. Answers to Excuses for the Opium Trade. Excuse 1. Opium-smoUng not very injurious, . Testimony of the Chinese— British Officials— Medical Men. Excuse 2. The Chinese not sincere in their desire to suppress opium-smoking, . . . _ . Testimony of Sir Rutherford Alcock— Li Hung-chang— the Chinese —Growth of opium in China no proof of insincerity— Testimony of Sir Rutherford Alcock and others. Excuse 3. The British Government has not forced China to admit opium, ..... Testimony of Sir Rutherford Alcock— Commissioner Kwei-lang— Sir Thomas Wade— Lord Elgin— Rev. H, Grattan Guinness — Sir Edward Fry— Rev. James Johnston. Excuse 4. If opium was forced upon China, we are not respon- sible for tvhat others did long ago, Sir Edward Fry -Rev. A. S. Thelwall, M. A. Excuse 5. If we do not send opium to China, others will. Excuse 6. That opium-smoking in China is not worse than intoxicating drink in England, The Opium Monopoly, . A proposal ; very candid, if not very wise- less labour — An erroneous issue. -A larger revenue with The Opium Trade and British Commerce, . Injurious to British Commerce, by David M'Laren, Esq. — Cotton Goods and the Opium Trade— Rev. Goodeve Mabbs— London Bankers on the Opium Trade — Mr. S. Manders — Dr. Dudgeon. The Opium Trade as now carried on a National Sin, WHICH MUST bring RETRIBUTION^ . . . . Dr. Norman Macleod— Sir Arthur Cotton- - The late M'Leod Wylie, Esq. — Cardinal Manning. Protest of the late E. Montgomery Martin, Esq., Letter from Sir Arthur Cotton, . . , . Important Testimonies, ..... Archbishop of Canterbury — Archbishop of York — Bishop of Madras — Earl of Shaftesbury — The late Dr. Punshon — Mr. Henry Richards,. M.P. Parliamentary Action, . Sir J. W. Pease's Notice of Motion — Letters from the Archbishop of York — The Bishop of Durham — The Bishop of Liverpool— The Bishop of Exeter. Signs of Progress in Public Enlightenment, PAGE 65 75 81 85 86 86 87 89 94 97 99 •) 106 108 ILLUSTEATIONS. An Opium-Smoker, .... Li Hung-chang, , . . . . Chinese Officials — Prince Kung and Wen-seang, The Poppy, . . . . . Chinese Merchants, . . . . The Opium-Smoker — No. 1, . The Opium-Smoker — No. 2, . The Opium-Smoker- — No. 3, . The Opium-Smoker — No. 4, . 30 64 67 79 91 . 113 . 114 . 115 . 116 \ J- INTRODUCTIOK The following pages will, it is believed, prove valuable to those who desire to form a sound judgment on some disputed points in the controversy on the opium question. That controversy is rapidly becoming one of the foremost questions of the day, and the nature and magnitude of the interests involved, both moral and material, will, now that the issues have been fairly raised, secure for it henceforth a continually increasing measure of 23ublic attention until satisfactorily settled. Twenty, thirty, forty and more years ago, there were those who earnestly protested against England's connection with the opium trade as then carried on with China. Their efforts to arouse public attention seemed unavailing. Few apparently gave heed. It is otherwise now. Motions in Parliament, resolutions adopted in Convocation, in Church Congresses, Wesleyan Conferences, Con- gregational and Baptist Unions, and in public meetings all over the countr}^, condemnatory of England's connection with the opium trade, are so many indications of the awakening of the public conscience to the national sin committed by England in forcing the Government of China to admit our Indian opium. The meeting at the Mansion House, presided over by the Lord Mayor, and at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Manning, Rev. E. E. Jenkins, ex-President of the Wesleyan Conference, and the Earl of Shaftesbury were among the speakers, was a notable evidence of public feeling upon the question. With such signs of progress multiplying on every hand, it was becoming manifest that the opium revenue was doomed, when almost simultaneously, and not without indications that they were actinoj in concert, a number of gentlemen came forward to justify the use of opium, and to vindicate the morality of the opium revenue. Their appearance was as unexpected as their arguments were strange. Foremost among these was Sir Rutherford Alcock, the man who of all others had done most to furnish material for the anti-opium agitation. A few days later Sir George Birdwood, in a letter which appeared in the Times of Dec. 6, 1881, made the startling announcement that opium-smoking was 'absolutely harmless,' 'almost as harmless an 6 INTRODUCTION. indulgence as twiddling the thumbs.' The following are his own words : — ' As regards oi)ium-smoking, I can from experience testify tliat it is of itself absolutely harmless. ' . . . ' I repeat that, of itself, opium-smoking is almost as harmless an indulgence as twiddling the thumbs and other silly-looking methods for concentrating the jaded mind. . . . ' All I insist on is the downright innocency, in itself, of opium-smoking ; and that, therefore, so far as we are concerned in its morality, whether judged by a standard based on a deduction from preconceived religious ideas, or an induction from national practices, loe are as free to introduce opium into China, and to raise a revenue from it in India, as to exx>ort our cotton, iron, and looollen manufactures to France. ' I am not approving the use of stimulants — I have long ceased to do so. I am only l^rotesting that there is no more harm in smoking opium than in smoking tobacco in the form of the mildest cigarettes, and that its narcotic effect can be but infinitesimal — if, indeed, anything measurable ; and I feel bound to publicly exjiress these convic- tions, which can easily be put to the test of experiment, at a moment when all the stupendous machinery available in this country of crotchet-mongers and ignorant if well-meaning agitators, is being set in movement against the Indian opium revenue on the express ground of its falsely imputed immorality.' Such statements, coming though they did from one who in some subjects had a well-earned reputation, were looked upon as too absurd to do any harm, and as not worthy of serious reply. It soon became apparent, however, that their circulation in the Times had given them an adventitious importance, and in various parts of the country many who had read them were greatly perplexed. It seemed to them improbable that a man who had any professional reputation to lose, would so trifle with it as to make, with such iteration, statements so definite and positive, unless he had some foundation in fact for his assertions. Deputy-Surgeon-General Moore was another who came forward, ' actuated,' he said, ^ by the firm impression that the British public were being misled by probably well-meaning but certainly mistaken persons.' He thought it unlikely that the people of England would consent to all that the loss of the opium revenue would involve ; ' especially when they would be doing so for the purpose of preventing a comparatively few Chinamen Suffering from the abuse of an agent which many more Chinamen find to be a source of enjoyment, of comfort, a necessity, and even a blessing.' These views Dr. Moore sought to justify. Another apologist for opium-smoking appeared in the person of a Mr. Brereton, a solicitor from Hong-Kong. In a public lecture he said : ' I had daily intercourse with the people, from whom the best and truest information on the subject of opium can be obtained, and my experience is, that opium-smoking, as practised in China, is perfectly innocuous. ' And he asserted that of all the British residents in China not one per cent, could be found ' who will not declare that opium-smoking in China is a harmless, if not an absolutely beneficial practice; that it produces no decadence in mind or body; and that the allegations as to its demoralizing effects are simply ridiculous.' He even said : * I have tried to find the victims of the dreadful drug, but I have never yet succeeded.' INTRODUCTION. 7 Sir George Birdwood, Dr. Moore, and Mr. Brereton were thus agreed in the bold attemj^t to persuade the people of England that opium- smoking is not injurious. Sir Eutherford Alcock, though more careful ill his language, sought, in his article in the Nineteenth Century^ and also in his pajier read at the Society of Arts, to minimize the evils resulting from the use of opium. If these gentlemen could only prove that opium-smoking is not injurious, the very foundations of the movement now becoming so powerful for the suppression of the opium trade would be swept away ; but unfortunately for the success of their enterprise, at the very moment when they were thus seeking to prove that opium-smoking ' is a harm- less, if not an absolutely beneficial practice,' there were in England a number of men who, by their long residence in China, and personal contact with the people, and some of them by extensive travel in that country, were qualified to speak upon the effects of opium-smoking in China, with an authority, and a fulness of knowledge, compared with which the opinions of these apologists for opium-smoking were but as the small dust in the balance. That an opportunity might be afforded these gentlemen to state 'the truth about opium-smoking,' it was resolved that meetings should be held in Exeter Hall, at which they should be invited to give the results of their experience. Nine of them (four of whom were medical men) accepted the invitation. Mr. George Williams {Treasurer of the Young Men's Christian Associa- tion), Mr. James E. Mathieson {Hon. Secretary of the English Presbyterian Missionary Society), Mr. T. B. Smithies {Editor of ' The British Workman'), and Mr. T. A. Denny, united in an invitation to a large number of members of Parliament, and other persons of influence, to meet these gentlemen at a conversazione and conference preliminary to the public meeting. The following pages contain the report of the proceedings, both at the conference and at the public meeting ; and in view of the desperate efforts now being put forth to bolster up an infamous revenue, the testimony here given is of the utmost value. On the one point, viz. the injurious effects of opium-smoking, the testimony will be found overwhelming. Let this be weighed in comparison with what has been said on the other side, and there can be no doubt what the conclusion will be. Sir George Birdwood, Dr. Moore, and Mr. Brereton have each shown large faith in the credulity and ignorance of the British public. Never did the advocates of a losing cause display less wisdom in their methods of dealing with their opponents than did these gentlemen. Their utterances, to quote the words of a distinguished man, have been ' almost inconceivably foolish.' Sir George Birdwood's letters have obtained for him a distinction which few of his professional brethren will envy. To say nothing of answers elsewhere, he is more than sufficiently answered in the following pages, and henceforth should speak tenderly of * ignorant if well-meaning ' persons. Dr. Moore's method of justifying the opium trade is much more objectionable. Not content with attempting to show that ' opium is especially suited to the Chinese constitution, habits,' etc., he goes out 8 INTRODUCTION, of his way to paint the character of the Chinese in the blackest colours, and even to ridicule Christian missions to people in distant lands, with much more equally irrelevant. He has brought upon himself the well- deserved rebuke of the Lancet, which says : — ' Into Mr. Moore's diatribes against the exaggerated statements which have been made regarding the extent of the opium evil, and against a philanthropy which embraces distant parts of the world in its endeavours, we are not concerned to follow him. Exaggeration there has doubtless been, and needless exaggeration, for the facts are sufficiently conclusive without it. Nor is this the place for a discussion of the political and moral aspects of the Chinese opium trade. Mr. Moore's statements, which Sir George Birdwood anticipated 'would furnish a complete vindication of the perfect morality of the revenue derived from the sale of opium to the Chinese,' will seem to every unprejudiced reader to darken rather than vindicate the morality of the pro- ceeding. The vindication consists of a violent tirade against the Chinese as the most drunken, debauched, and dissolute people on the face of the earth, and we are therefore justified in forcing upon them an additional intoxicant.' A further extract from the Lancet is given in the Appendix. Anything more ludicrous than Mr. Brereton's line of argument could not well be. The people of England were being misled ' by hearsay evidence,' ' and that of the worst and most unreliable kind.' He had be- held with concern the delusions now so common in England on the opium question, and he had come to dispel them, and he modestly entertained a confident hope that his efforts ' will prove in a humble way instru- mental towards breaking up the anti-opium confederacy.' He had seen from afar the rising tide of public opinion, and he had come, Mrs. Partington like, with his mop to stem its progress ! He had learned the truth about opium, and he desired to make it known. But how had he learned ' the truth about opium ' % Here is the secret in his own words : ' I have been the professional adviser of the opium farmer [who, he says, pays the Government of Hong-Kong £40,000 a year for the exclusive jjrivilege of selling opium in the colony], and from him and his assistants I have had excellent opportunities of learning the truth about opium. I have thus been able to get behind the scenes, and so have had such opportunities of acquainting myself with the subject as few other Europeans have possessed. I knew the late opium farmer, whom I might call a per- sonal friend, intimately from the time of my first arrival in China. ... I knew him so intimately, and had so many professional dealings with him, irrespective of opium, that I had constant opportunities of becoming acquainted with all the mysteries of the prepared opium trade.' What evidence could the British public get equal to that ! He says that the conclusion to which his own personal experience has led him is, * that opium-smoking, as practised by the Chinese, is perfectly in- nocuous ; ' and, wonderful to relate, he further says, ' I have never met any one whose experience differed from mine.' It is almost needful to apologise for referring to the statements of Mr. Brereton at all, but he has published his views in a large book, which some, who have not lived at Hong-Kong, may quote as though it were an authority worthy of reliance. Sir Eutherford Alcock is an opponent of a different type. It is to be regretted that, by his changed attitude, one who has done such good service in this question should now have to be classed with INTRODUCTION, 9 opponents. Mr. Fossett Lock, in his article in the Contemporary Eeview, has rather severely answered Sir Eutherford. Mr. Lock says that Sir Rutherford * admits that, in a most important matter, which it has been his duty to study for years, he has been for years mistaken in his views, and misleading the public opinion of England. Now, upon fresh information, acquired since his duty to acquire it has ceased, he has completely changed his mind, and he appeals to the public opinion of England to follow him in his right-about-face movement.' The Eev. F. Storrs Turner has also, in an excellent article in the Nineteenth Century, ably answered Sir Rutherford; but no better answer to Sir R. Alcock's recently expressed views can be made than that supplied by his own evidence before the House of Commons Committee on East India Finance in 187L Until he gives better reasons than he has yet done for his new views, it will be felt that what he said so soon after his return from China is more reliable than anything he can say now. That opium- smoking is injurious in a very high degree ; that England did force opium upon China; that England now forces opium upon China ; that the Chinese are sincere in their desire to put down opium- smoking ; and that the native growth is no evidence of insincerity, — are facts most clearly shown by Sir Rutherford Alcock in his evidence, as the quotations given in the supplementary portion of this pamphlet will show. Other documentary evidence of high value to the same effect is also quoted. Sir Alexander Arbuthnot has also written in defence of the opium trade. His article which appeared in the Nineteenth Century is moderate in its tone, and fair and courteous towards those who hold views opposed to his own ; but like many other Indian officiafe, Sir Alexander allows the interests of India to fill the whole range of his vision. He says: *It is sometimes forgotten that in the cry of justice to China, the duty of dealing justly by the people of India is apt to be over- looked.' The reverse of this is precisely the case, and in the cry of justice to the people of India, the duty of dealing justly by the people of China is apt to be overlooked. Sir Alexander Arbuthnot, in showing the importance of the opium revenue, says : ' During the last twenty years the opium trade has supplied to the Indian treasury a net revenue of £134,500,000.' What if it has ? The sum is immense, but if the source of the revenue is unsatisfactory, the amount cannot be pleaded in its justification. If the people of England could but see for one hour the poverty and wretchedness, the ruin and death caused in China by the use of one million pounds worth of opium, they would be horrified. What must be the extent of the desolation caused in China by the use of opium enough to yield the Indian Government a net revenue of £134,500,000 1 And yet Sir Alexander can dwell with complacency upon what this opium revenue has done for India ! ' Without the opium revenue,' he says, ' the education of the natives of India could never have been attempted upon its present scale ; the funds available for the adminis- tration of justice must have been largely curtailed ; the cheap postage and the telegraph could not have been introduced ; the police must have been left upon its old inefl[icient footing; the expenditure upon 10 INTRODUCTION. public works must have been very much less than it has been,' etc. One reads such words with inexpressible amazement. Funds available for 'the administration of justice,' derived from a trade which, in its origin and in its continuance, has been one of the greatest acts of injustice the world has ever seen ! How incongruous the thought ! If ' the funds available for the administration of justice ' in India have been obtained by the perpetration of injustice in China, what then ? If the education of the natives in one country has caused the destruction of the natives in another, what thenl If efficient police in India means the corruption of officials in China, what then % If cheap postage, telegraphs, public works and other improvements in India involve the deterioration of China, what then % Must we, with our eyes opened to see that these things are so, go on in our wrong -doing % Surely Sir Alexander Arbuthnot and other Indian officials would not, could not plead for the Indian opium revenue if they knew all that its maintenance involved in China. The following pages will in some measure reveal this to them. Here are the testimonies of eye-witnesses, than whom none better qualified to speak on the subject can be found. They are all tried and trusted men, whose sincerity and truthfulness are above question. Put on one side the opinions of Sir George Birdwood and l)r. Moore (neither of whom ever set foot in China), and the statements of the solicitor from Hong Kong (who cannot speak the Chinese language), and on the other side put the personal experience of the eleven missionaries whose testi- mony these pages give, and whose united period of residence in China exceeds 150 years, and then let any one say whether there can be a moment's doubt which is most to be relied upon. Testimony more worthy of confidence has never been given, and that it may be of service in helping to form public opinion at the present fjtage of the controversy it is now published, with other evidence of unquestionable authority. If it were merely to counteract the unwise utterances of some to whom reference has now been made, the collection of this evidence would not have been necessary ; but when men like Major Baring in high authority, while generously acknowledging the high motives of those who are seeking the suppression of the opium trade, repeat and endorse some of the same erroneous views, it is needful to have at hand authoritative answers to their misleading statements. Let their assertions be carefully examined, and the whole subject investigated, and there can be no doubt what the result will be. The new defenders of the opium trade profess to have come forward to instruct the public, but as Mr. Turner has well said, 'when the ignorance was denser than it is now, these learned experts were silent; ' and he adds, ' One may be forgiven for surmising that it is not the i,2:norance, but the knowledge of the British public, which they dislike.' The excuses for the opium trade which one or other of its defenders have urged may be thus summarized : 1. That opium-smoking is not very injurious. 2. That the British Government has never forced opium upon the Chinese. 3. That the Chinese are not sincere in their professed desire to put down opium-smoking, and that the cultivation of the poppy in China is proof o"f their insincerity. INTR on UCTION. 1 1 4. That if we do not send opium to China, others will. 5. That if the opium trade was forced upon China, we are not now responsible for what others did long ago. 6. That if opium is injurious in China, it is no worse than intoxi- cating drink in England. 7. That India cannot do without the revenue derived from the opium trade. These excuses are all more or less fully dealt with in the following pages, but most of them have no relevance whatever to the one great question at issue. As so many seem to have no clear apprehension of what this one question is, it may be well to state it once again. It is, that England, by compelling the Government of China to admit into China a drug which is a source of impoverishment and ruin to the people, commits a great national injustice, and that we ought not any longer to continue this injustice, but to allow the Government of China liberty to admit or not to admit opium, as in the interests of the people of China it may deem best. Can anything be more reasonable % This is the one great contention of those who are seeking the sup- pression of the opium trade. All other points are secondary, and of little importance compared with this. Despite all that has been said, upon incontestable authority, as to the fearful evils resulting from the use of opium in China, we have unrighteously persisted in forcing it upon that unhappy country. This we have been doing for many years. Cardinal Manning, at the Mansion House meeting, said : — ' It has been going on now for a period of forty years. By means that are secret, I mean smuggling ; by means that are violent, I mean war ; by means whjch I hardly like to characterize, which I will call diplomacy, — we have been forcing upon the Chinese population the consumption of a poisonous drug.' This we have done, and have done notwithstanding the most earnest 2:)rotests, the most touching appeals, the most humble entreaties of the Government of China. The distress of the Government, the sufferings and sorrows of the people, we have disregarded, and have relentlessly aimed at one thing, and that the securing a large revenue for the Indian Government, by the sale of our Indian opium. More than sixty years ago Dr. Milne wrote : — ' The vast consumption of opium on this side of India is the source of so many evils to the people, — and yet of so much gain to the merchant,— that I utterly despair of saying anything on the subject which will not be treated with the most sovereign contemj)t. I cannot but regard it, however, as one of the many evils which hinder the moral improvement of China.' And since then, many others of the noblest men who ever left the shores of England, have been almost heart-broken on account of the wrong done to China, and have done what they could to make our wrong- doing known ; but the people of England have, up to the last few years, nearly all been deaf to their cries, and so the wrong-doing has gone on increasing in extent, until now the very magnitude of the evil, as represented by the immense revenue, is used as an argument for its continuance. An examination of this opium question can hardly fail to leave 12 INTRODUCTION. the most profound and painful conviction that no right-minded man can study the character of our dealings with China in this matter of opium without being filled with shame and sorrow. The record, if faithfully written, will form one of the blackest chapters of history. Having regard to the nature and extent of the evils consequent upon our dealings with China, it may be doubted whether any nation has ever more deeply injured another than England has injured China. And yet there are those who can point to the amount of the money gained by our unrighteousness, and the difficulty of doing without it, as though that condoned our sin. What notion of the justice of Him who rules the world must he have, who supposes that we can commit such exceeding wickedness and yet escape retribution ! Mr. Henry Richard only expressed what thousands feel, when, at the close of his admirable speech on the opium question in the House of Commons in 1876, he said : — * ' I am not ashamed to say that I am one of those who believe that there is a God who raleth in the kingdom of men, and that it is not safe for a community, any more than an individual, recklessly and habitually to affront those great principles of truth, and justice, and humanity, on which, I believe. He governs the world. And we may be quite sure of this, that in spite of our pride of place and power, in spite of our vast possessions and enormovis resources, in spite of our boasted force by land and sea, if we come into conflict with that Power, we shall be crushed like an eggshell against the granite rock.' This view of the matter is left out of account by those who consider the opium revenue so much clear gain. There is ample reason for believing that though what is called the * net revenue ' derived by the Indian Government from opium during the last forty years has ex- ceeded £200,000,000, the real net money gain to India has not equalled a single sixpence. On this point we invite attention to the views expressed by Sir Arthur Cotton, Cardinal Manning, and others, which will be found pp. 95, 96. That the difficulties in dealing with the matter are now exceedingly great none can deny. A course of wrong-doing cannot be long followed by a nation, any more than by an individual, without the difficulty of reverting to a right course being immensely increased. The statesman who breaks the bonds of his official surroundings, and, Indian officials notwithstanding, resolves in this matter of opium to do justice to China, will need to be a strong man ; but he will need to be a much stronger man who will successfully resist the efforts of those who are resolved never to rest until our national complicity in this iniquitous business is brought to an end. He who is resolved that the opium revenue shall be maintained, and that the Chinese Government shall not be free to admit or not to admit our Indian opium, must take it into account that he has the Christianity of England to fight, for the conscience of England is now awaking. The, Friend of India thinks it 'hard to believe that any moral scruple could in the scale weigh down seven millions sterling a year, that the indulgence of any sentiment could be purchased at such a price.' But when 'sentiment' is only another word for a firm and iNTR on UCriON. 1 3 conscientious conviction of what is right and just, it is a power that can do strange things. It must, however, be remembered, that while those who seek the suppression of the opium trade demand first and chiefly that China shall be free to admit or not to admit opium, there are other considera- tions which, though subordinate, are of very great importance. They consider it no small thing that the commerce of England should be sacrificed for the sake of the opium revenue. That it has been, the facts of the case plainly show. But for the opium trade China would have been long ago a market of vastly more value to British manufac- turers and merchants than it has yet become. The following figures are significant : — The export of opium from India to China for the year 1880-81 amounted in value to £10,244,44:^. The exports from the United Kingdom to China, including Hong- Kong and Macao, were — Cotton yarn and cotton, . . . . £6,178,344 Woollens, £1,279,620 Metals and sundries, £2,024,858 £9,482,822 This is the amount of our exports to a country containing a popula- tion numbering hundreds of millions. If manufacturers and merchants will study the opium question in its bearing on the interests of British commerce, they will marvel at some of the lessons to be learned. (See ' Opium Trade and British Commerce,' p. 73.) Another important consideration is, that it is no light thing that a line of conduct should be followed by England which, instead of securing the goodwill of the Chinese, is having a contrary effect, and is causing towards England a deep distrust and dislike. The goodwill of the Chinese, whose power and influence in the East are rapidly increas- ing, would be to England a source of strength, as their ill-will may become a source of no small danger. Our opium policy in this respect is the very opposite of all that wise statesmanship would dictate. Moral, commercial, and political considerations, it will thus be seen, all combine to prove the importance of suppressing the opium trade. A further consideration must be mentioned. It is, that Indian interests are imperilled, and serious financial derangement risked, by a continued dependence upon a source of revenue so precarious as the opium revenue is admitted to be. The opium revenue is in danger ; its own friends say so. They con- sider it in danger from the extensive growth of the poppy in China. The danger from this source we consider too remote to cause any immediate apprehension. In face of the fact that, with an increas- ing cultivation of the poppy in China, the Indian opium revenue has continued to increase, and that the limit of the power of consumption in China has not yet been reached, there is not much reason to expect that, beyond a possible disturbance in price, the Indian opium revenue will be seiiously diminished by the native growth for some time yet. 1 4 INTR OD UCTION. There is, however, danger from other sources. The Chinese Govern- ment, chafing under a sense of long-continued injury, may settle the matter by a word. If to-morrow morning the Government of China informed Sir Thomas Wade, Her Majesty's representative in China, that on and after January the 1st, 1883, the Government of China would not admit opium any longer, what would be the result % There Avould be some vapouring about ' Violation of treaty rights,' ' The power of England defied,' ' Insult to the British flag,' and the usual appeals to popular ignorance ; but would any Government in this country venture to go to war again to force opium upon China] Would public opinion allow such a course % There is reason to believe that it would not. What, then, would be the fate of the Indian opium revenue % It would be cut off at a stroke. If, however, it should happen that evil counsels prevailed, and that, in spite of the moral feeling of the country, we were dragged into war, it would be a war very different from the China wars of former times. We may not doubt on which side victory would ultimately lie, but the cost in blood and treasure would be unexampled, for China during the last twenty years has made extraordinary progress in the development of her defensive resources. How near we may be to some such resolve on the part of China not to admit our opium any longer, we do not know ; but there is good reason for believing that some of the most influential men in China are only waiting the time when, feeling strong enough to risk the consequences, they may announce their determination not to submit any longer to that clause in the Treaty of Tientsin which, to the incalculable injury of their country, compels them to admit opium. Such an ending of our opium trade would be ignominious, and would fix upon this country the indelible stain of having held to the trade as long as it could. Nor would this be all ; our future relations with China would be damaged for generations to come. The most certain danger to the Indian opium revenue may, however, be looked for, where it certainly ought . to be found, viz. in the action of the people of England. It is shameful that this action has been so long delayed ; but the country is now becoming aware of the wrong that has been done in its name, and has commenced a movement, which is rapidly gathering force, and which will undoubt- edly bring England's connection with the trade to an end. The, Friend of India and Statesman, alarmed at the prospect of the opium revenue being lost, says: ^ If a certain number of electors joined the movement, so as to make it worth a hundred votes or so to each candidate at a Parliamentary election, the thing woidd he done.^ This is undoubtedly true ; but the same authority cherishes the delusion that if the opium monopoly were abolished, the revenue might be saved. The article is altogether most remarkable. Much of it is given in the Appendix, pp. 87, 88, and will amply repay a careful reading. Major Baring in his Budget speech discussed this question with great fairness and ability, and clearly show^ed that if the opium revenue is to.be maintained, the monopoly cannot wisely be abolished. One important consideration he did not name, though it might have been present to his mind, viz. the improbability of private capitalists risking enormous sums of money by ventures in connection with a INTROD UCTION, 1 5 trade the continuance of which they could not safely count upon for a sinfjle year. The abolition of the monopoly in order to get rid of the odium attaching to it, and in order that the revenue may be the more permanently secured in another form, would be little less than an attempt to deceive the people of England, and would not touch the morality of the question. While respectful towards opponents, Major Baring unhappily appears to be driven by the exigencies of his position to defend the trade. He avoids the folly of those who as'sert the non-injurious effects of opium- smoking, but on the most important point he takes a false position, and contends that opium is not forced upon China. The evidence in the supplementary portion of this publication will have been selected to little purpose if Major Baring's error on this important point is not abundantly proved. A further proof, if further proof were needed, is afforded by the terras of tlie notice of motion in the order-book of the House of Commons. All that Sir J. W. Pease asks for is that the Government of China may be free to act in the matter of opium as it may judge best. Why ask for freedom for China if China is free already ] If China is not forced to admit opium, there is nothing to prevent the Government giving cordial assent to the motion. Will the Government do this 1 A vote on this motion, one way or the other, would be worth a good deal. The Friend of India, though mistaken about the means whereby the revenue may be saved, has very clearly indicated where the power lies by which it can be ended, viz. *in a certain number of electors/ and all that is needed to secure the action of the ' certain number of electors ' is that they shall understand what it is we h^ve done arid are doing by our opium trade. This is the opinion of those best acquainted with the question. Sir Edward Fry says : — ' I have such faith in the good feeling of my countrymen, that I believe that if they could once realize what it is that we have done and are doing as regards opium, they would rise as one man, and get rid of the accursed thing, which, as sure as there is a moral government in the world, will one day or the other find us out.' — England, China, and Ojpium, p. 6. The Rev. Griffith John says : — ' Attempts were sometimes made to palliate the sin of the trader, and to make light of the evil effects of the drug. On both points our utterance must be clear and emphatic. We know that opium is a curse — a curse physically, a curse morally, and a curse socially to the Chinese, and this fact we must declare in loud, ringing tones. ... It is our duty to appeal to the great heart of England — ^for she has a heart, and when that heart begins to beat warmly on the question, this foul blot on her escutcheon will soon be wiped off.' — Speech in the Shanghai Conference^ 1877. 1 6 INTRODUCTION. The Rev. David Hill says :— * It had been said that this traffic produced a revenue to India of eleven million pounds sterling per annum. It mattered not whether it were eleven million or eleven hundred million ; if the s(nirce of revenue be immoral, the amount of it cannot justify its collection. He thought the English public were not at all acquainted with the real state of the case, and that if it were plainly laid before them, we might hope to see the traffic suppressed.' — Speech in the Shanghai Conference, 1877. Light is spreading, and this trade cannot live in the light. Three or four hundred missionaries scattered throughout China cannot live among the people without the truth about opium-smoking being known to them, and through them to all who are interested in then- work. There are also powerful agencies at work in England. In the diffusion of information sorely needed, the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade has done a work which has given it a just claim to public gratitude and support. Much, however, remains to be done, and the society now referred to should have a more widespread and generous support, and to this should be added the further aid of energetic personal, effort on the part of every one who is convinced that it is an unrighteous thing to force an injurious drug upon China. We owe much to China. We have deeply injured the people of that land. The evil we have done we cannot undo, and the evil now being done v/e cannot prevent. Multitudes, tempted by the drug we have supplied, and compelled their Government to admit, have formed habits which will be the ruin of their families and themselves. We have set in motion forces of evil which we cannot now control, and this we, as a people and nation, are responsible for. If it had been the action of individual Englishmen which had caused all the ruin and death which has been consequent upon the use of our opium in China, it would have been bad enough ; but it has been through the action of the British Government that the evil has been wrought, and the sin of this rests upon us all. We are individually responsible. Our national connection with the traffic must, at all costs, be ended. Thousands are resolved that it shall be, and are working to this end. What is needed to aid them in their work ? Nothing so much as the unimpeachable testimony of those whose position and experience qualify them to speak upon the question with an authority none can gainsay. To supply such information the following pages have been published. B. BROOMHALL. 2 Pyrland Road, Mildmay, N., May 1882. THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. PROCEEDINGS AT A MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL KOOM, EXETER HALL, LONDON, ON WEDNESDA Y, MARCH 15, 18S2. The Chair was taken by the Eight Hon, Lord Polwarth. The meeting was opened Avith prayer by the Rev. H. Grattan Guinness. The Chairman. — Gentlemen, the object of our meeting is not to make speeches upon the subject at this time, but to put direct questions, that those who are well acquainted with China may give us direct answers in as concise a form as possible, and distinctly state to us that which it is important for the public generally to know. Certain statements have been made publicly with reference to the opium traffic. It is very important that those who have a thorough knowledge of China, and acquaintance with the Chinese people, and the bearing of this opium question upon them, should have an oppor- tunity given them to state their opinions, and to give the facts as far as they have come under their cognizance, that the public generally may be enlightened upon this subject, and that views which have been put forward may be sifted and answered. There is one question which I should like to introduce to the meeting. It has been said that opium-smoking is of itself absolutely harmless. Is that statement true % And what is the general effect on the opium-smoker mentally, physically, and morally? Perhaps some gentleman who has had acquaintance with China as a medical man will be able to answer that in the first instance. Perhaps Mr. Collins, who was twenty-three years in China, will be able to give us his opinion with reference to that question. B 1 8 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. Eev. W. H. Collins, M.RC.S.— I feel very little difficulty, indeed, in giving an answer to this question, and one most totally oj^posed to Sir George Birdwood. Sir Georgv^ Birdwood most evidently is utterly i.ijnorant of the subject on which he has written. He never could have written as he has, had he seen and known what I have seen and known. The question is. What is the effect upon the Chinese mentally, physi- cally, and morally % My experience is, that they suffer less mentally than in any other way ; but they do suffer. The whole man suffers. But physically and morally they are most thoroughly deteriorated by opium-smoking. It destroys a man's energy for work. If he is a labourer, as many of them are, he must at a certain time go to his opium pipe. He cannot continuously labour as a healthy man does, but when the time for his pipe draws near, he is miserable and wretched until he can go and take it. Then he is restored for a time to apparently perfect possession of his faculties, because opium-smoking is not, as many imagine, only a soporific. It is a powerful stimulant, and when a man takes his pipe he is revived, and goes forth to his work again. I have no doubt that all who have been in China have had experience with an opium-smoking teacher. As the time for his pipe draws near, he gets miserable. He begins to nod over his book ; and if the time is prolonged, he will get thoroughly wretched until he can get away. We never would willingly get opium-smoking teachers, and therefore he conceals the real cause of his appearance, and goes away on some pretext, which, when he is dealing with one who is a novice in China, is very easy ; and then he gets his pipe, and he comes back another man, and goes on with his work. But then you must remember that the interval between the pipes gradually shortens. At first he smokes probably twice a day, but a man must take more and more opium, as the months and years pass on, to keep up the required effect on his constitution. A man who is a labourer becomes a wreck in the course of a few years, utterly unfit for the work upon which his own livelihood and that of those around him depend. And then, as to the moral effect, every one in China knows what that is. The Chinese are all of them more or less morally weak, as you would expect to find any heathen nation ; but with the opium-smokers it is worse. The English merchants at Shanghai — those who introduced opium into China — would not tolerate an. opium-smoking servant in their employ at the time I was living there, for he could not be depended upon. So it is with the Chinese themselves. They will not willingly do so. The smoker becomes morally weak. His selfishness becomes intense. One reason is, that he must supply his pipe at all hazards, and at all costs to those who are around him. The opium- smoker will steal anywhere and everywhere in order to supply his pipe, and nobody in any important business would in any way depend upon a man who smoked opium. Opium is most generally smoked in China by the higher classes ; and this is the great evil that it does to China, because the ruling classes are enfeebled by it, physically and morally, and therefore great wrong is done to the whole nation by the fact of the ruhng classes being opium-smokers ; and it may very well happen that even if England gives free leave to China to reject the drug they will not REV. IF. H. COLLINS— DR. GAVLD. 19 do it, because they have learnt to love it, and because they have in a iireat measure become dependent upon the income which is derived from the opium trade. Hence, unless a man were very strong-minded as a statesman, he would be unable to deal with this matter. You see we have incurred guilt in fixing upon the opium-smokers in China the love of the drug, and especially, as I have already said, upon the ruling classes, upon whom would depend the decision whether this drug should be rejected or not. If there is any point which I can make clearer, I shall be very glad if questions are asked. The Chairman. — Perhaps Dr. Gauld will say a few words. He has been a long time in China. W. Gauld, M.D. — The question is still the general effect of opium, mentally, physically, and morally, upon the opium-smoker. From an experience in hospital and dispensary work among the Chinese, ranging over sixteen or seventeen years, I can affirm, without any hesitation, that the statement of Sir George Birdwood is entirely wrong. There is no foundation for it in fact. He compares the opium- smoker with the tobacco-smoker. .Now, in a company of Chinamen I could not possibly tell who was a tobacco-smoker and who was not ; but if you put twenty Chinamen before me, and among them one man who has been long in the habit of smoking opium, I believe that I could point out that one man from among the twenty. That of itself is sufficient with regard to this comparison of tobacco-smoking and opium- smoking. You may ask how I could point out the opium-smoker, and the answer to this will be an answer to the question as to how opium affects a man physically. I can point him out by his appearance. The opium-smoker has a peculiar sallow skin, and, usually, blue, congested lips. This arises from the effect of the o^ium. It acts ' upon every nerve-cell, and probably every nerve-fibre.' At first the effect of it is slightly stimulant, but afterwards it is depressing and deadening, and the more a man smokes opium the more his whole system gets deadened. That is to say, his functions are not in a normally active state. This is manifested in a very simple way. For instance, the bowels of the opium-smoker do not act perhaps oftener than once in ten days, or once in fifteen days, and sometimes once in a month. I have known such cases. It is the same with respiration. The blood gradually becomes less and less oxidized, and the venous system becomes congested. Hence you have that blue state of the lips and the shortness of breath of a confirmed opium-smoker. All these things show the effect on the body. As to the mind, it acts through the brain, and you can easily see that the mind is affected by the effect on the brain. When a man takes opium, the immediate effect is stimulating, as we have heard from Mr. Collins ; but that effect gradually passes offi His statement al)out the teachers I can confirm from my own experience. As a rule, these teachers soon get sleepy over their books. They cannot keep up their attention as ordinary men can. You may say, ' Why liave opium-smoking teachers % ' The reason is, that opium-smokinj? is so prevalent among the literary classes in China that we can scarcely get a teacher who is not an opium-smoker. This of itself shows the 20 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. deadly effect that the habit is likely to have on the Chinese as a nation, because the rulers are taken from these literary classes. Then, as we have heard, the man is affected morally. So long as he is a rich man, with plenty of money, not only to get opium, but also to get good food and clothing, the opium may not tell so seriously upon him or upon his family ; but it must be remembered that the inevitable tendency of the opium-smoking is to gradually drain away the riches, and produce poverty ; and as the man gets poorer, more and more relatively of his money goes for the opium, and less and less for other things. His family suffers, and at last, if he is reduced to poverty, he will not hesitate to sell his wife or his children in order to get opium. He will do without his food, if he has not money to procure both, and the last thing he will part with is his opium pipe. Mr. E. B. Underhill, LL.D. — The immoderate use of opium, there can be no question, produces the effect which has been spoken of, but I wish to ask whether there are a large number of men in China who use it moderately, and who are not carried on by temptation to use it immo- derately ; or whether it is universally the fact, that all who begin to use it, say in a moderate way, inevitably fall into its immoderate use % Is there a large number of men in China who use opium moderately, very much as men will drink moderately here, and not necessarily fall into a state of confirmed drunkenness % Dr. Gauld. — I believe that there are many who at first do take the opium only occasionally, but 1 believe also, from what 1 have seen, that the tendency towards the habitual use of it is incomparably greater than the tendency to become a habitual user of alcohol. A man can take a little alcohol, such as a glass of wine occasionally at his dinner, with- out any one supposing that he is likely to become a drunkard on that account. At least many do it. But if a Chinaman takes opium oftener than a few times, such is the insidiousness of it, that in a short space of time he is all but certain to acquire the habit. And that is one point in which it is specially worse than alcohol. I believe that there are some things in which alcohol compares unfavourably with opium, as, for instance, with regard to the violence which is produced by alcohol ; but with regard to the insidiousness and the tendency to become a habitual smoker, there is no comparison between opium and alcohol. Opium is far more seductive. That is the universal testimony, I believe, of those who have been in China. Mr. Henry Yarley. — I should like to ask one question, my Lord. It seems from what we have heard that the ruling and literary men of China smoke opium very largely. Are we to infer that the lower classes are superior to the literary men in that respect, and that it is not a common thing amongst the poor ] Dr. Gauld. — A great many of the poor smoke opium. There are certain classes especially. For instance, the chair-bearers are almost universally opium-smokers. Rev. W. H. Collins. — When we speak of the numbers who smoke opium, it must be remembered that probably not one per cent, of the whole population smoke, and therefore, if nearly all the literary classes smoke, there will be a very small number of smokers left in the lower classes. My experience has been chiefly in the north. Most of the gentlemen here represent the more southerly parts of China. My DR. MAXWELL. 21 experience is that, amongst the labouring classes, comparatively few smoke ; there are, in fact, scarcely any smokers in the agricultural districts. If in Ensrland the moderate drinkers and the drunkards o together amounted to only one per cent, what should we hear of it? And yet what an outcry opium-smoking causes in China generally, though it does not involve more than one per cent, of the whole population ! Mr. Henry Yarley. — We have been accustomed to liear of the ravages of opium for the last fifteen or twenty years. I hardly know how to understand it. I do not know whether it strikes every gentle- man in the same way. If it is only a question of one per cent., of course it is important to bring public opinion to bear against that ; but we have been accustomed to think that it was a very widespread and ravaging curse ; and I am afraid that if the thought gets out, it will appear that we have a very weak case. J. Maxwell, M.A.,M.D. — My experience was almost wholly amongst the working-classes. To explain the difference between such statements as that of Mr. Collins and the experience noted by the other gentlemen who have just spoken, I may say that in the larger cities of South China one per cent, would not by any means cover the number of those who smoke opium ; and in many cases 20 per cent, would not cover it, taking the adult male population as the basis of reckoning. In the city of Tai-wan Fu, where the inhabitants are reckoned at something between 100,000 and 200,000, the Chinese estimate the number of smokers amongst the adult male population at something- like one-half or one-third. I would not myself put it at that figure ; but if we even put it at one-fifth or one-sixth, which is perhaps too low, you see at once how the statements about the ravages of opium- smoking are to be explained as compared with such a statement as that of Mr. Collins. Then, again, if we take the city of Soo-chow, which is one of the largest cities in China, we have testimony which cannot be rebutted, that seven-tenths of the male adult population there use opium as opium-smokers. That explains how it is that there are places in China with regard to which you would speak of the terrible ravages of opium. On the other hand, I believe that the agricultural population do not use opium to any such extent as the population in the large cities. My own experience would lead me to say that, physically, the etfect of opium-smoking upon the working-classes is after a time quite manifest in the form of more or less emaciation. I do not believe that a working-man in China can smoke opium for any length of time with- out showing it in his flesh. He becomes emaciated. That is due simply to the general want of nutrition produced by opium. You will remark that fact amongst the working-classes far more manifestly than amongst the wealthy, well-to-do classes. The working-man is, perhaps, earning about lOd. or Is. a day. He will have to spend about two- thii-ds of that to supply his craving for opium. One-third is left for the food. If any stress comes, — such as days of sickness, or failure of work, or anything of that kind, — he has necessarily to stint himself in his ordinary food. The consequence is, that the effect of the opium becomes much more rapidly manifest, and he is exposed in that way to 22 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. the onset of disease, and of death from disease, in a way in which an ordinary working-man who is not an opium-smoker is not exposed. That is a point which must always be kept in view in connection with the working-classes. The effect is very much more quickly visible in them than it can possibly be in those who have plenty to eat and drink, and who are not necessarily deprived of food by want of work. Then, as to the mental effect, I have no hesitation in saying that the effect upon the physical system is also more or less manifest in pro- ducing a certain dulness and lethargy of intellect amongst the opium- smokers. You cannot meet with a confirmed opium-smoker and speak with him without feeling that the man is not 'ail there,' even mentally. He can answer your questions, but he has not the sustained mental vigour of the non-smoker. The testimony of the Chinese themselves is quite distinct — that the whole man is affected ; that he is not only physically, but also mentally and morally affected. And then as to the moral element, you have what I think no one can gainsay, and that is the testimony of the Chinese themselves. All through the South-Eastern provinces of China — I do not speak of Western China, I leave that altogether out of account — but in South- Eastern China the opium-smoker reckons himself to be morally criminal, and not only so, but the whole population also reckon him to be so ; and in admitting people into the churches, we should not be permitted by the Chinese Christians to admit an opium-smoker. We should be regarded as doing an immoral thing ourselves, if we permitted an opium- smoker to be admitted into the church. Mr. Theodore Fry, M.P. — My Lord, in reference to some of the first remarks of Mr. Collins, I should like to ask him whether he thinks that if the supply of opium from our own territories were to cease, the Chinese would increase their home supply? I know that this is a question which does not affect the responsil3ility of this nation ; but still it is a point upon which our opponents argue very strongly. Eev. W. H. Collins. — I have not the least doubt that if the Indian opium were withdrawn, the Chinese would vigorously attemjyt^ and to a certain extent carry out, the prohibitions, which have been very rigorous, against the planting of the native opium. But if they were to prohibit it effectually now, what would be the result % A much larger supply of Indian opium would flow into the country, and a much larger amount of silver would year by year be carried out. That their will is to prohibit it, I have no doubt. Of course, I do not mean all of them ; but Li Hung-chang, who is one of the greatest powers in China, is in earnest in the matter. Tso Chung-lang, who is also a most powerful man in China, is also in earnest ; and if these two men, who are the most influential men in the empire, are sincere in the matter, they would be able to a great extent to prevent the planting of opium. They themselves do not smoke it. The Chairman. — It is very important that we should know the general effect upon the population of China. Perhaps some gentleman who has travelled into the interior will tell us what the effect really is, and how far that effect is obvious to those who live in China. The Eev. F. W. Ealler. — The effect on the population is obvious to all who travel in China. In every town and every place that I have been to throughout about two-thirds of the empire, you can see the REV. J. SADLER-DR. GALT. 25 result on the population in misery, and wretchedness, and poverty, and moral degradation. In Western China I suppose that there would be fully 50 per cent, or more of the adult population who smoke opium ; and in that part the population are the most miserable and wretched that you could meet with in any part of China. In proportion as the habit increases in different states, in that proportion do the population sink, and poverty and misery and all sorts of crime follow as the result. A man would need to be in China only a very little time before the evil effect of opium-smoking would be very apparent to him indeed. Rev. J. Sadler.— ^I merely wish to say a word with regard to the spread of this evil. It ought to be remembered that in some parts of China, according to the testimony of the Chinese themselves, the opium shops are becoming as numerous as the rice shops. Supposing only one man of a family be a smoker, the misery which he will cause will spread over his whole family. It may likewise spread over the family of his sons and others of his relatives, because the Chinese are accustomed to live very many under one roof, and they have one purse, and therefore the misery is simply incalculable, although only a few men should smoke. There is another thing to be looked at with regard to the spread of the misery. Opium-smoking is a thing of comparatively recent date ; and if it has grown already to such immense proportions, what will it do in the future, going on only at the rate at which it is spreading now % If these things are taken into account, it v/ill be readily understood that the miseries are as great as ever they have been represented. I remember some years ago translating a ballad that the Chinese had themselves prepared, and which had very caustic remarks on the opium- smoker, bearing out exactly what Dr. Maxwell has said ;*and afterwards I read it to one or two Chinese friends, and everything which was there stated as to the abject misery of the oj^ium-smoker was corro- borated by them ; and further, there was a most impressive allusion made to the utter ruin of the smoker himself, and then of his property, and then of the sale of his children and his wives, and even of himself in some cases j and therefore I think that we must be deeply impressed with the fact that what we have heard of the misery caused by opium- smoking is certainly true. The Chairman. — Perhaps Dr. Gait, who has been a good while con- nected with China in medical work, will state his opinion about the first cjuestion that has been put. J. Galt, M.R.C.S.E. — My Lord, I may just say a {kiMut down the opium traffic' We ask any who really think so to read the history of the question, and then to suggest any way in which a nation could more clearly show its anxiety to rid itself of an intolerable burden than the way the Chinese have adopted, bearing in mind the fact that China was a weak power, and that England was a strong power, and that while at war with us China had to deal with internal rebellions, which crippled her resources. Others say, ' They grow opium themselves ; all over Western China large tracts of land are under poppy cultivation ; ' and they ask, ' How can the Chinese be sincere in their desire to get rid of opium when they grow it themselves ? ' Our friends who so strenuously urge this 6o THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. objection always fail to state the fact, however, that the extensive growth of opium in China is a thing of the present generation. In 1877 I travelled across the country into Burmah. On every hand in Si-chuan, and Kwei-chau, and Yun-nan, I found the poppy largely cultivated, but everywhere found, upon conversation with the people, that its cultivation had been begun within the memory of middle-aged men. Before that time patches here and there had doubtless been grown, but not in such quantity, or on such a scale, as to be of any serious moment. The period of the persistent efibrt of England — our successful effort to introduce the drug on the Eastern seaboard, and our continued though unsuccessful efforts to open up a trade route from India into China on the West — will really cover the period of time during which opium has been so largely grown in China. Could we blame the Chinese Government if, failing to induce us to remove our pressure, and stop or reduce our import of opium into their country, they should, in very despair, seek to put us out of the market by allowing their own peoj)le to produce the drug*? Indeed, while compelled to receive our opium, we can scarcely imagine that the Chinese authorities could use their power to carry out the restrictions already in force against the growth of the poppy ; so that for the native growth of opium, as well as for that imported, we must be held largely responsible. The best men, the most powerful men in China, are opposed to the growth of opium, and are determined to put it down. The task would be difficult, but few who have had any experience of the power of the central government to carry out its wishes all over the empire, can doubt that the men who are now at the head of affairs in China, could put down the poppy cultivation, if the outside pressure were removed. And there is every reason to believe that they would honestly make the attempt. Whether they succeeded or not, they ought to be left free to put in force their so oft-repeated professions. It is uiched to charge them with insincerity while we refuse to allow them to prove their sincerity. INDIA AND THE OPIUM REVENUE. But the question is also gravely asked, ' What are we to do in India without this opium revenue,?' 'It may be a crime to force the Chinese to have our opium, we may lament the misery caused by the use of that opium in China ; but however trying to our feelings all this may be, we really do need the money in India ; in fact, we cannot do without it.' The British nation — the great British nation — can only maintain its hold over the millions of India by doing what it can to poison the millions of China ! Alas 1 how are the mighty fallen ! ' Get money, honestly if you can, but get it, for you need it.' This may be devil's doctrine, but it is not doctrine worthy of a great and Christian nation like England. And yet something like this in effect is often urged, and that by men who ought to know better. The God of nations, who loves the Chinese people as well as the people of these isles, can easily blow upon, and scatter, all ill-gotten gains ; and it is easy for us, by wars, and famine, and pestilence, to lose far more than we appear to gain by our opium revenue. TESTIMONY OF REV. GRIFFITH JOHN. 6i Looking at the matter from our opponents' point of view, we may ask them, 'What will they do for revenue when China refuses to have any more of our opium % Will England again go to war to force this poison upon China 1' We may with confidence say — never. I have faith in the power of truth, and the fads of this opium business need only to be known in order to prevent such a possibility, and to secure a settlement of the question for ever. They are the truest friends of the Indian Government who urge upon them the propriety of finding some other source of revenue besides that from opium ; for it is all but certain that, if our country does not relieve China from the pressure of our opium traffic, China will take the matter into its own hands, and settle the question in a way that will not be so agree- able to us, before long. If we are wise, and seek to rid ourselves of this traffic, as far as we can, thus trying to repair the evil we have done (which, alas ! is really impossible), it may give us a legacy of kindly feeling and goodwill in the minds of the Chinese, which will be for our own benefit for genera- tions yet to come, while if the matter is taken in hand and settled by the Chinese Government, the odium and disgrace will be ours to the end of time. Testimony of Eev. Griffith John, Of the London Missionary Society, ttoenty-six years missionary in China. England has been the means of opening the Chinese empire to the merchants of the world, and it is our duty as a Christian nation to take a deep interest in its highest prosperity. Moreover, our connection with China has not been a source of unmixed blessing to the people, UNSPEAKABLE EVILS OF THE OPIUM TRADE. Think of the opium trade, and of the unspeakable evils which it has brought upon that land ! The Chinese call us devils, and when I think of this unprincii^led and destructive trade, I cease to wonder at it. Previous to the year 1767, the opium trade was almost entirely in the hands of the Portuguese ; but the quantity annually imported did not exceed 200 chests. In 1773, we find the East India Company in the field as importers of the drug; and under its auspices and fostering care the trade grew rapidly, so as to reach in 1854 as much as 78,354 chests. I cannot now go over the sad history of the shameful trade, nor describe the selfish conduct of the British Govern- ment in respect to it. It is well known that the attempt made by the Emperor Tau-kwang to put an end to the traffic was the immediate cause of our first war with China. That war cost the Chinese 21,000,000 dols. and the island of Hong-kong, to say nothing of the great losses and evils it brought with it to the empire. For the destroyed opium we compelled the Chinese to pay 6,000,000 dols. When all was over, our plenipotentiary. Sir H. Pottinger, did what he could to persuade the Chinese to legalize the traffic. But what was 6 2 THE TR UTH ABO UT OPIUM-SMOKING. the emperor's reply % ' It is true/ said he, ' I cannot prevent* tlie introduction of the floAving poison; gain-seeking and corrupt men- will, for profit and sensuality, defeat my wishes ; but nothing will induce me to derive a revenue from the vice and misery of my people.' Noble words ! They are worthy of being written in letters of gold. To my mind, the heathen monarch stood on a much higher moral platform than the Christian plenipotentiary. The next thing Great Britain did, through Lord Elgin, was to persuade the Chinese Govern- ment to legalize the traffic, and thus cause opium-smoking to become a safe, respectable, and general practice over the length and breadth of the land. The Chinese pay us for this destructive poison from £14,000,000 to £16,000,000 per annum; whilst the value of the British produce exported from the United Kingdom to China is only from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. Such is the position of Great Britain, the representa- tive of Christianity in the East, in China as a great commercial country. But opium is not only robbing the Chinese of millions of money year by year, but is actually destroying them as a people. It undermines the constitution, ruins the health, and shortens the life of the smoker ; destroys every domestic happiness and prosperity; and is gradually affecting the physical, mental, and moral deterioration of the nation as a nation. The Chinese tell us that a large proportion of the regular opium-smokers are childless, and that the children of the others are few, feeble, and sickly. They also affirm that the family of the opium-smoker will be extinct in the third generation. When a man smokes, his son generally smokes also, and begins at an earlier age than his father did ; so that if the son be not childless, as is often the case, his children are born with feeble constitutions, and die prematurely. Our merchants and Government may speak of the opium trade as a ' political necessity,' and as being ' regulated by the ordinary laws of supply and demand.' That is one way of looking at it, and a very soothing way, I suppose, to those who are interested in it. But the Chinese themselves say that ' England trades in opium because she desires to work China's ruin.' ' It is not only,' writes one of the natives, 'that year by year they abstract so many millions of our money, but the direful appearances seem to indicate a wish on their part to utterly root out and extirpate us as a nation.' Some tell us that the use of opium is not a curse, but a comfort and a benefit to the hardworking Chinese ; and one has been assuring the public recently that opium-smoking is as innocuous as the * twiddling of one's thumbs.' How to deal with statements of this kind, it is difficult to see. To one who has lived in the country for twenty-six years, they appear utterly unaccountable. I would not in any case put them down to wilful misrepresentation ; and yet it is difficult to ascribe them in some cases to ignorance. OPIUM-SMOKING AN UNMITIGATED CURSE. All that I wish to affirm is, that they are wholly false, and that opium-smoking in China, so far from being an innocent enjoyment, is an unmitigated curse to both the nation and the individual. The missionary is made to feel constantly that this pernicious TESTIMONY OF REV. GRIFFITH JOHN. d^ trade, with its disgraceful history, speaks more eloquently and convincingly to the Chinese mind against Christianity than he does or can do for it. The trade has created a strong prejudice against the missionary and the gospel. The Chinese cannot under- stand how the same people can bring to them a gospel of salvation in one hand, and a destructive poison in the other. They do not sec how it is possible for us to feel such a tremendous interest in their souls, whilst we are destroying their bodies by the million ; and they have their doubts as to whether a people who could carry on such a traffic have a right to talk to them about religion, and exhort them to virtue. Though we as missionaries are free from the abomination, the Chinese cannot draw the line of demarcation. And then they will ask : ' Is this trade a legitimate fruit of Christianity]' But, granting that Christianity is not responsible for it, and that it is carried on in spite of Christ's golden rule, — to do unto others as we w^ould have others do unto us, — what is the use of Christianity if this trade is a specimen of its influence on the hearts and lives of men % It is useless to say that the Chinese are growing opium themselves, and that they will continue to do so, whether we import it or not. We have nothing to do with the possible or probable action of the Chinese in the matter. It is for us to wash our hands clean of the iniquity, and allow^ them to deal with it as they please. The trade is immoral, and a foul blot on England's escutcheon. It is not for us to perpetrate murder in order to prevent the Chinese from committing suicide. It is, however, by no means certain that the Chinese would not make an honest effort to stop the native growth, if we would only give them a fair chance to do so, by stopping the importation. I believe they would make the attempt, though I am not prepared to promise that the result would be satis- factor}^ I cannot close my eyes to the fact that opium-smoking in China has become so common, and that the habit has such a hold on its victim, that in my most calm and solemn moments, I can see no hope except in God. There are millions in China to whom the drug is dearer than life itself. Even if the foreign trade in the drug were given up, it is more than probable that opium-smoking, and consequently opium-growing, would go on in the provinces. Yun-nan, Kwei-chau, and Si-chuan are red with the poppy every year; whilst in several of the other provinces it is extensively cultivated. The evil is now one of enormous magnitude ; and I am inclined to think that no legislative measures on the part of the Chinese Govern- ment, however honestly adopted, will put an end to it. Be that as it may, our path as a Christian nation is plain enough. We have inflicted a terrible wrong on the people of China, and it is our solemn duty to try and undo it, by abandoning the trade at once and for ever ourselves, and by giving them every sympathy and aid in our power in their attempt to banish the curse from within their own borders. Would to God it were possible to bring the British Government to see the wicked character of the traffic, and to induce them to ' sacrifice their opium revenue on the altar of our national Christianity and China's wellbeing ! ' — From ^ China: her Claims ami CalV HIS EXCELLENCY THE GEAND SECEETAIIY AND VICEROY, LI HUNG-CHANG. APPENDIX. EXCUSES FOR THE OPIUM TRADE. Excuse 1.— THAT OPIUM - SMOKING IS NOT VERY INJURIOUS. That opium is very injurious is abundantly proved : — (1) By what the Chinese have done and said concerning it. (2) By the testimony of Sir Eutherford Alcock, and other officials. (3) By the unanimous testimony of all missionaries. And (4) by the almost universal testimony of medical men. TESTIMONY OF THE CHINESE. Sir Rutherford Alcock, K.C.B., Her Majesties Representative in China, in his evidence before the House of Commons Committee on East India Finance in 1871, said : — '5694. A. I should be very glad if you would allow me to read some passages from my despatch [to Lord Clarendon] on that subject, because it states in the shortest possible way with what view the Chinese Government were then pressing, in fact, for the total prohibi- tion of opium, as being too injurious to them to he tolerated or endurecV In this despatch, Sir Rutherford gives an account of his conversation with some of the leading members of the Foreign Office at Pekin. The following brief extract shows the Chinese estimate of the evil of opium-smoking : — ' Pekin, May 2ith, 1869. * From missionary troubles and dangers, the conversation diverged to the hostile animus which was so constantly manifested by the literati, and all the official class, against foreigners generally, irrespec- tive of religious questions. . . . ' In the end Wen-seang shifted his ground ; and, after first maintain- ing the innocence of the party accused, he admitted that there might be some of the literati who were imbued with a hostile feeling ; but, he asked, how could it be otherwise 1 and proceeded to put in a plea of justification, saying they had often seen foreigners making war on E 66 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. the country; and then, again, liow irreparable and continuous was the injury which they inflicted upon the luhole empire by the foreign importation of opium. * He then added, if England would consent to interdict this, — cease either to grow it in India, or to allow their ships to bring it to China, — there might be some hope of more friendly feelings. No doubt there was a very strong feeling entertained by all the literati and gentry as to the frightful evils attending the smoking of opium, its thoroughly de- moralizing ejfects, and the utter ruin brought upon all who once gave way to the vice. He believed the extension of this pernicious habit was mainly due to the alacrity with which foreigners supplied the poison for their own profit, perfectly regardless of the irreparable injury inflicted, and naturally they felt hostile to all concerned in such a traffic' . . . * Subsequent to this conference, I received, in the month of June, from the Foreign Board of Peking, an ofRcial note urging upon Her Majesty's Government the policy of prohibiting the importation of foreign opium, as being prejudicial to the general interests of commerce. As the memorial is but a short one, I think it would be satisfactory to the Committee if I read it, instead of giving a mere abstract.' This memorial from the Government of China is a most important document. It shows how deeply the leading officials of the Empire felt the evils consequent upon the opium trade, and how earnestly they entreated the British authorities to do away with it. Mr. Henry Richard, M.P., truly described it when he said it was ' a powerful and pathetic appeal from the Chinese to the conscience and kindly feeling of the British nation.' And Sir R Alcock, after reading it to the House of Commons Committee, said, ' I think that the Committee will see that this is a very significant document.' Memorial from the Government of China. *Erom Tsung-li Yamen to Sir R. Alcock, July 1869. — The writers have on several occasions, when conversing with His Excellency the British Minister, referred to the opium trade as being prejudicial to the general interests of commerce. The object of the treaties between our respective countries was to secure perpetual peace ; but if effective steps cannot be taken to remove an accumulating sense of injury from the minds of men, it is to be feared that no policy can obviate sources of future trouble. ' Day and night the writers are considering the question with a view to its solution, and the more they reflect upon it, the greater does their anxiety become, and hereon they cannot avoid addressing His Excellency very earnestly on the subject. ' That opium is like a deadly poison, that it is most injurious to mankind, and a most serious provocative of ill-feeling, is, the writers think, per- fectly well known to His Excellency, and it is therefore needless for them to enlarge further on these points. The prince ' (the Prince of Kung' is the president of the Board) 'and his colleagues are quite aware that the opium trade has long been condemned by England as a nation, and that the right-minded merchant scorns to have to do with it. PRINCE RUNG. WEK-SEANG. 68 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. ' But the officials and people of this empire, who cannot be so com- pletely informed on the subject, all say that England trades in opium because she desires to work China's ruin, for (say they) if the friendly feelings of England are genuine, since it is open to her to produce and trade in everything else, would she still insist on spreading the poison of this hurtful thing through the empire ? ' There are those who say, stop the trade by enforcing a vigorous prohibition against the use of the drug. China has the right to do so, doubtless, and might be able to effect it ; but a strict enforcement of the prohibition would necessitate the taking of many lives. Now, although the criminals' punishment would be of their own seeking, bystanders would not fail to say that it was the foreign merchant seduced them to their ruin by bringing the drug, and it would be hard to prevent general and deep-seated indignation ; such a course, indeed, would tend to arouse popular anger against the foreigner. ' There are others, again, who suggest the removal of the prohibitions against the growth of the poppy. They argue that, as there is no means of stopping the foreign (opium) trade, there can be no harm, as a temporary measure, in withdrawing the prohibition on its growth. We should thus not only deprive the forei.ieople's money on a scale, however large, is one that a nation will make readily enough at the bidding of conscience. If a certain number of electors joined the movement, so as to make it worth a hundred votes or so to each candidate at a Parliamentary election, the thing would he done. Both candidates would take the pledge to avoid loss, and both parties would give in their adherence. There can be little doubt that even now some votes are to be gained in some places by attacking the opium monopoly, and none can be got anywhere by defending it. Such considerations will now-a-days have greater weight than any number of despatches from a Governor-General in Council. We should say that the opium revenue must now be pronounced in danger, and that those interested in its defence, that is to say, all Indian taxpayers, should look to it. TIME TO SET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER. * It is, indeed, time that our house should be set in order. The objections to the opium revenue which really tell with the average English voter, who is the master of the situation and of the country, are not essential to the raising of the revenue, and may, if our action be not too long delayed, be removed in time to save the exchequer 88 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING, from ruinous loss. . . . The opium trade may be defensible, but it is hardly a business in which the Governor-General should take part in his official capacity. If he must touch it, we should recommend that the contact should not be too close. The officers of the opium department are an excellent set of men, who, in spite of their theory that the drug is most useful, never consume any of it themselves ; but it is not a pleasant spectacle to see them moving about the country, tempting cultivators with advances on the jiart of Government to grow the poppy, or to watch them at some station receiving the juice from thousands of clients. The Government godowns at Patna are most interesting, but those who watch the process by which the drug is made into cakes for India and balls for China, may fairly doubt if this is a business which should be per- formed by Government servants. An opium auction is one of the sights of Calcutta ; it is seldom that one can see property worth a million sterling change hands in half an hour, at rates which rise and fall even during the sale itself in a manner which awakens the keenest spirit of gambling ; but is it quite consistent with our ideas that a Govern- ment secretary should preside once a month at such an auction of such an article on the account of the state ? The retail sale of the drug at Government treasuries, a cake at a time, will to many seem still more anomalous. Government will not sell a bottle of gin or brandy ; why, then, a cake of opium ? . . . THE MONEY WITHOUT THE ODIUM. * If the monopoly were abandoned. Government would still control the cultivation, by system of permits, as in the case of ganja. . . . There are many traders who would under- take the work of manufacture, employing the present staff if necessary. And there would be no lack of competition for the business of storing the drug in Calcutta, or of selling it to the exporters. It may be confidently anticipated that the business would be better done in every respect by persons whose success as traders depended on it, than by the salaried officers now employed. . . . The duty levied would be proportionate to the average profit to Government on each chest under the present system, and the amount of the receipts would depend on the quantity manufactured. If private enter- prise was successful, the demand would increase, and the revenue would gain ; in the unlikely event of its failure to obtain as good results as the direct action of Govern- ment, there would be a falling off. But whether it is more or less than it is now, the opium revenue would be comparatively secure. It would be hardly open to attack simply as a tax on a pernicious drug. The Marquis of Hartington and the Liberal Government at home have pledged themselves to try to effect some such change, and if the Bengal Government is well advised, it will not interpose the helpless objection, non possuvius.'' Let not Lord Hartington or the Government think that the people of England will be hoodwinked by the abolition of the monopoly, if the abolition is only to be a prelude to the transfer of the wretched business to j)rivate enterprise, and the maintenance of the revenue in another form. It is too late to attempt to fool the country by any such device. Nothing less is demanded than that the Government of China shall be absolutely free to admit or not to admit opium, as in the interests of the people of China it may be thought expedient. This is plainly stated, as under, in the memorial to Mr. Gladstone : — * Suggestions have been made of some scheme by which, instead of the Government being itself the manufacturei-s and dealers in the drug, encouragement would be given to private persons to assume such a position, and the Government would, by means of a licence or some other form of taxation, endeavour to keep its present revenue, and to get rid of the odium which attaches to the trade. Such a scheme, if it should ever be adopted, would involve a continuation of that pressure on the Chinese which is the most odious part of our present system, and would not lessen hy a feather's weight the burden of our present sin, hut rather add to it the fresh stain of hypocrisy. It cannot be forgotten OPIUM AND BRITISH COMMERCE. 89 that, speaking generally, we are not dealing with a trade which requires to be checked, but with a monopoly, which ceases the moment it is not exercised ; that the Indian Government is a despotism, and that in a despotism to permit is to do ; and that to liand over to private individuals a trade which we have created and increased by wrong, and could immediately extinguish, would be a mere piece of moral legerdemain. Nothiwj short of an acttial withdrawal from all complicity in the trade, and of a real and zealous co-operation %dth the Chinese Government, could satisfy the exigencies of conscience.''— From ' Memorial ' to Mr. Gladstone.— For signatures to this memonal, see pp. 109, 110. A Larger Eevenue with Less Labour. It might fairly be expected in this instance, as in most others, tliat private enterprise would increase and cheapen production, and that an exdse duty ivould give Government a larger revenue, with infinitely less labour and expense in administrative machinery than is at present incurred. — ^ Hoiu India is Governed,' by Alex. Mackenzie, late member of the Legislative Council, Madras. An Erroneous Issue. It has by some persons been suggested as a remedy, that England should abandon the monopoly practically in favour of private trade. This is a strangely erroneous issue to raise ; for surely it is absolutely unimportant whether we raise revenue by a monopoly or by a tax. To me it seems idle, or very nearly idle, to harp on the difference between the Indian Government growing opium and permitting it to be grown ; for the responsibilities of a despotic government are greater than those of a free state. . . . But what I do object to is that, being interested, as 1 have pointed out, in the sale of opium, the Government has worked both tax and monopoly alike for one purpose, and for one purpose only, viz. the acquisition of the largest amount of gain, and that without regard to the moral results on China, and in defiance of the wishes of the Govern- men and people of China. — Mr. Justice Fry in ^England, China, and Of)ium.' THE OPIUM TRADE AND BRITISH COMMERCE. The Opium Trade with China Injurious to British Commerce. Extracts from An Inquiry into the Results of the Opium Trade with China, including its bearing on the Export of British Manufactures, by David M'Laren, Esq., J.P. Our commerce with China has been the most disappointing chapter in the history of free trade. It has resulted, whatever be the cause, in a state of matters utterl}'' anomalous. [Mr. M'Laren then goes into detail, and after giving the total amounts for certain years of the imports from China, and exports to China, and showing how small a proportion of our export trade is done with China, he says : — ] 90 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING, But striking as these figures are, the full force of the contrast is not sufficiently brought out, unless we also remember that the empire, where we are so unsuccessful in our commerce, contains much more than a third of the population of the globe, — and that population intensely mercantile in its character, — and that it is intersected by innumerable canals, affording the cheapest means of conveyance from the coast to the interior ; while India, with one or two exceptions, has scarcely a road or canal worthy of the name. Yet to ' this magnifi- cent market,' as the committee call it, we send much the same quantity of goods that we do to Egypt, to such petty republics as La Plata or Chili, or the slave population of Cuba ! Tahh of British Exports, on the average of 4 years, ending 1857, to Egypt, with a population of 4,000,000, fl, 548,074 Cuba and St. Domingo, with a population of 2,400,000, 1,734,448 Chili, with a population of 1,400,000, 1,417,314 China, with a population of 400,000,000, 1,736,191 Were the amount of the opium trade converted into British manu- factures, the shipments to China, instead of barely equalling those to some of the petty States already named, would amount to the whole of them together, and of several more besides, and would place it next to the United States as our best customer. ' Cease sending us so much opium,' said the chief magistrate of Shanghai, ' and we shall be enabled to take your manufactures.' [Other tables are then given, and Mr. M'Laren proceeds : — ] For twelve or thirteen years after the opening of the India and China trade of 1813, opium formed scarcely one-half of the exports to China. In 1858, cotton was £393,493, and opium £8,241,032, or ninety per cent, of the whole ! It is impossible to resist the conclusion to be drawn from these tables. If the Chinese take value for their exports in one form, they cannot at the same time take it in another; and further, as will be seen shortly, the more they take in opium, the more they diminish their productive power, and subsequent ability to become profitable customers in any trade. The commercial part of our inquiry cannot be better summed up than in the words of Captain Elliot, British superintendent of trade in China : the opium traffic, in its general effects, is * intensely mischievous to every branch of trade.' Cotton Goods and the Opium Trade. By Rev. Goodeve Mabbs, Organizing Secretary to the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade. The population of China is allesred to be 400 millions, or one-third of the inhabitants of the globe. China ought, therefore, to afford one of the largest markets in the world for British exports. But instead of this, as a matter of fact, our China trade is relatively of infinitesimal proportions. The figures are as follows : — Exports to China, 1879 .... £8,268,413. Exports to China, 1880 .... 9,482,822. OPIUM AND BRITISH COMMERCE. 91 92 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. These show an increase for the year of nearly one million and a quarter compared with nine millions and three-quarters increase in India. But again, 1879 was not a prosperous year for trade with China as compared with several preceding years. From 1869 to 1872 the value of British exports to China (including in all cases Hong-Kong and Macao) ranged between nine millions and nearly ten millions sterling. In the first of tho?e years it was £9,240,161. So that going back, as before, over a period of twelve years, we get an increase in 1880 of less than a quarter of a million sterling, being at the rate of less than three per cent, as compared with about seventy-three per cent, in India. Taking the population of China at 300 millions, instead of 400 millions, the exports in 1880 gave a proportion of slightly over 7d. per head. During the same year the Chinese at the treaty ports — that is, at the only channels of trade open to us — were paying to the opium merchants from £14,000,000 to £16,000,000 for opium. If it be contended that the fact of India being governed by ourselves makes the comparison with China scarcely fair to the latter, let us take the case of the neighbouring country, Japan, from which opium is ex- cluded by treaty, made shortly after that of Tientsin, by which we forced opium upon China. The population of Japan is stated to be about 36,000,000. The exports from Great Britain for 1879 and 1880 are as follows :— 1879, £2,997,522 ; 1880, £3,81 3,397. This gives an increase of considerably over three-quarters of a million; but in 1869 these exports amounted to £1,595,868, so that during the last twelve years the increase has been nearly two millions and a quarter sterling, or at the rate of 150 per cent. In order that it may be seen that India and Japan are not selected for comparison with China because they are exceptionally favourable for that purpose, I subjoin a table of eight of the countries with which our principal trade is carried on : — Imports Value I )er Rate of from England. Head, Increase £ £ s. ■ d. in 12 years. Australia 18,748,000 6 11 6i 30 p.c. Cape of Good Hop 3 and Natal . 7,206,000 4 9 6 3.83 p.c. West Indies . 2,451,662 1 19 21 16 p.c.i British N". America. 8,516,019 1 19 li 4 1 p.c. United States. 37,954,192 14 7 41 p.c. India 32,028,055 2 6 73 p.c. Japan . 3,813,397 2 1 150 p.c. China, with Hong-Kons; and Macao . 8,842,509 7 3 p.c.i It will thus be seen that China stands proportionally at the very bottom of the list. The following table applies exclusively to tlie values of cotton goods exported from Great Britain, and the rate per head for the various populations : — '^ Nearly. OPIUM AND BRITISH COMMERCE, 93 Per Head. £ 3. d. Australia ..... 1,782,778 12 6 Cape of Good Hope and Natal. 609,486 7 7 West Indies ..... 562,519 9 British North America . 918,024 4 2i United States 3,698,268 1 f)" India 21,093,267 1 8 Japan 2,007,860 1 H China, with Hong-Kong and Macao 6,178,344 41 If commercial Manchester will address itself to finding a satisfactory solution to the question, Why is it that China, instead of being, as it ought to be, the largest and best market for British imports, is relatively one of the worst % it will find reason to welcome the movement for the suppression of the opium trade as an ally, instead of being jealous of it as at present. . . . Depend upon it, there is no greater barrier, botli politically and economically, to the extension of British trade with China than our British Indian opium trade. The seven or eight millions of revenue which India obtains from the traffic really comes out of the till of the British manufacturer and from the resources of the British people. How long will Englishmen submit to this % — Extract from letter to the Editor of the ^Manchester Guardian.' London Bankers on the Opium Trade, in a letter to the chambers of commerce. We lay stress on this outstanding fact, that English industry is practically shut out from the market which of all others ^eems to offer the greatest possibilities of increase and expansion ; and this not from any unwillingness on the part of the Government or people of China to receive our manufactures, but through the calamitous operation of a monopoly which exists for the sake of bringing in revenue to the Indian Exchequer. The purchasing power of China seems paralyzed by the opium trade, whilst the Indian budget rests upon a basis which must give way the moment China is strong enough to assert herself. Mr. S. Manders on trade with china. It was a legitimate expectation, cherished from the beginning of our intercourse with China, that an immense trade would ultimately spring up between that country on the one hand, and England and India on the other. But, after a hundred years of intercourse, what are the facts? In 1874, with twenty-one seaports open to us, in addition to the possession of Hong-Kong, England sent to China, with its 400 millions of inhabitants (nearly one-third of the human race), less than £8,000,000 worth of goods, out of a total export to all countries of £250,000,000, that is, less than fourpence per head per annum of its population ; while the Australian Colonies, with only four millions of people, took £14,000,000 worth of our goods, or just £3, 10s. per head per annum. 94 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. Dr. Dudgeon on the commercial loss to england caused by the opium trade. The commerce and manufactures of our country are seriously affected by the trade, so much so that, in one sense, we might say Great Britain pays over eight millions annually to India. We and the Chinese are the sufferers by the trade. . . . Were this traffic abolished, there is almost nothing in the way of progress in the opening up of the country and facilitating of trade that they are not, J believe, prepared to do. THE OPIUM TRADE, AS NOW CARRIED ON, A NATIONAL SIN, WHICH MUST BRING RETRIBUTION. Dr. Norman Macleod on the punishment of national sin. It is perhaps true that to connect the sufferings of individuals or of nations with their sins may be a very difficult task now-a-days, and one in which the vision of the wisest ' seer ' may be perverted by the dark- ness of ignorance and the bias of his own prejudices or passion. It may also be alleged that, so far as we can discover, God now leaves men to the sole operation of His natural laws, to be punished by the consequences of disobedience to them. ... And what though God be ruling over us and revealing His will to us by general laws ; what though we can no more discern the super- natural, if His government be supernatural, and not eminently mortal ! Are we not taught by Scripture that God can in His own way and time, now as ever, and by fitting instrumentalities, visit the earth with judgments, and thereby carry out His holy purposes ? Verily though ' the natural man ' may see the natural only, yet the * spiritual man ' can see a living God also, if not in, yet from His working ; a God who, in perfect harmony with all law, can, in the world of matter and of mind, touch far-off springs of power, by which forces may be either produced or held in check, so as to do His will. He surely can give to or withhold from man wisdom, skill, genius, power ; and in many ways, which no human eye can foresee, may reward well-doing or punish wrong-doins:. He can punish the wicked by even letting him 'eat of the fruit of his own ways, and be filled with his own devices.' And He can humble the pride of wealth, punish its selfish expenditure, and destroy the godless boasting of commercial prosperity, by the action of laws which can affect the treasures of gold and silver, through other treasuries known to Himself alone, such as ' the treasuries of the snow and of the hail, which He hath reserved to Himself against the day of trouble;' and by rain poured down or withheld from His secret laboratory, He can make the exchanges of the w^orld to tremble or rejoice. — From Sermon preached by Dr. Norman Macleod, published at the Queen's command, and also by her command dedicated to Her Majesty. NATIONAL SIN AND ITS PENALTY. 95 Sir Arthur Cotton on retribution for national sin. When the American Government passed the fugitive slave Jaw, and so sealed their own condemnation, Garfield said (how terribly true !) ' A covenant with death, and an agreement with hell, that will destroy the authors of it. The cry of the oppressed and down-trodden will appeal to the Almighty for retribution, like the blood of Abel. The lightning of divine wrath will shiver the old gnarled tree of slavery, leaving neither root nor branch.' And on the same subject of slavery, Lincoln said, ' What if every drop of blood drawn by the lash from the slave is paid for by blood drawri by the sword ! ' etc. These words also were exactly fulfilled. If we refuse to hear what God has thus declared in the civil war to all the world, what can we expect but that He will speak yet louder to us, upon whom as a nation He has heaped up such favours as no nation ever received ? — Letter to the Anii-Ojnwn Society, hy Sir Arthur Cotton. The late M'Leod Wylie, Esq., on national sin and its penalty. It must not be supposed that any Government can continue such a course as ours with impunity. ' God is not mocked.' In May 1839, our quarrel with China respecting the conduct of British subjects in reference to oj^ium-smuggling was first brought to the test of arms, and troops and vessels were sent from* India in the course of that year to aid Her Majesty's forces. In May 1840 commenced those risings against our power in Affghanistan which ended in the defeat and massacre of the entire British army, and a blow to our influence in India and Central Asia from which we have never recovered. At the commencement of 1857, a quarrel, arising out of our protec- tion of one of the smuggling-lorchas, was brought to the same test ; we bombarded Canton, and the British nation, at a general election, enthusiastically ratified the policy of Government, and a large ex- pedition, with an enormous amount of the munitions of war, was des- ])atched 'to vindicate our honour.' Before that expedition could reach China, there burst forth in India a more terrible insurrection than has been known in modern history, and our formidable armament had to be diverted with all speed for the preservation of our Indian Empire. . . . As the Spaniards and Portuguese carried to South America a corrupted Christianity, and in wickedness proved themselves worse than the heathen, so we in China are exhibiting, not love of our neighbour, but the most hateful selfishness, and are sowing the seeds of a blight and woe such as fell on the followers of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru. But if as a nation we will now redress this mighty wrong, — if we will now honestly set ourselves to the noble work of purging our national reputation from the stain of this disgrace, — if we 96 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. will now at length discharge our solemn duty, and resolve, whatever may be the cost, that Britain shall no longer be guilty of hastening the temporal and eternal ruin of the millions of China, can it be doubted that God will bless us, and that we shall find, in giving up our five millions a year, that ' He is able to give us much more than this ' % We may doubt how we can best accomplish our benevolent design, but our way will certainly be made plain, and the national recompense will be speedy and abundant. — From Notes on the Oj)ium Question by the late JSPLeod IVylle, Esq., of Calcutta. Cardinal Manning on the danger of persisting in our orium policy. It seems to me manifest that if we deliberately, with our eyes open, persist in this course, we are preparing for ourselves a castigation which may come even from human hands. We despise the southern Chinese as an unwarlike people. What are the northern, and what are the western provinces of China 1 What are those armies that went forth the other day into the centre of Asia and met the Russian force 1 There is a power in China which one day may raise itself up, before which our great imperial army may find that it has a heavy task to do. But more than this ; there is a great empire that is hovering upon the frontiers of China, on the Amoor river, on the north and on the west, and on our north-west of India ; and who knows that the scourge may not be there preparing for us if we alienate the Oriental races — if we make them distrust us — if we teach them to regard us as the destroyers of all that is dear to them — if they see that we are trading for money — that we are not controlled, I will not say by our Christianity, but by moral laws 1 The member for South Durham the other day, instead of saying, ' Christian and international morality,' might have used the formula of our old jurists, 'The law of nature and of nations;' for it is a crime against the law of nations to poison a neighbouring people. If we go on so, the day may not be far distant when there will come the chastisement, and we shall deserve it. The other day, a statesman worthy of the name — one of the leaders of our great political parties— in answer to some one who said, 'By what right do we hold India 1 ' replied, ' By the divine right of good government.' That divine right of good government, as long as we persevere in justice, will avail. If we violate it, we tear up our imperial titles. Mighty as our will may be — and mighty indeed it is, for the British Empire is now in the zenith of its power — yet over the tumultuous waves of human wills there is one Sovereign Will that reigns. If we violate it, its judgment may come slowly, but its judgment will come surely at the last. — Sjjeech at the Mansion House Meeting on the Opium Question. OUR CAREER OF INIQUITY IN CHINA. 97 PROTEST OF THE LATE R. MONTGOMERY MARTIN, ESQ., A 3Iemher of Her Majesty^ s Legislative Council at Hong-Kong, In 1844, twenty opium-smoking shops were licensed in Hong-Kong in the name of Her Majesty the Queen of England. Mr. Montgomery Martin, who was at that time Her Majesty's Treasurer for the Colonial., Consular J and Diplomatic Services in China, and a Member of Her Majesty's Legislative Council at Hong-Kong, endeavoured in vain to prevent this being done, and put on record his protest, which was dated ' Council Eoom, Hong-Kong, November 26, 1844.' In an official report to Her Majesty's Government, published two or three years later, Mr. Martin gav^ a singularly clear statement of the opium question in a chapter headed, ' Opium : Progress and Extent of Consumption ; Individual and National Effects ; Imperial Edicts ; Denunciation by the Government ; its Seizure and Destruction ; State of the Traffic, and Unchristian Conduct of England.' Mr. Martin closed his report with a very solemn and powerful appeal, from which the following is taken : — OUR CAREER OF INIQUITY IN CHINA. To dwell more on this distressing theme would be unnecessary ; if the facts herein stated will not awaken the minds of those who call themselves Christians in England, neither would they hear ' although one rose from the dead.' It would be contrary to the admitted order of Divine Providence to suppose that such a career of iniquity as we have been pursuing in China, can bring with it any blessing. * If there be a Supreme Being — the Creator of the universe and of man — if He he a God of justice, and have any regard for the creatures He has made, it is not possible to contend that He can view with indifference the commission of crimes, such as the previous pages incontestably establish. AS A NATION SOWS, SO IT MUST REAP. The grossest idolater admits and practically recognises the truth of this principle. Those who have the slightest belief in the Jewish and Christian Testaments, must, at least with their lij^s, acknowledge that the Creator and Preserver of mankind has, by example and precept, established most conclusively the retributive decree, that as a nation sows so it must reap. Can England reasonably expect peace and plenty at home when she is scattering poison and pestilence abroad % Can she, without hypocrisy, consecrate churches, and ordain ministers of a Christian faith, while her rulers and governors are licensing opium hells, and appointing supervisors to extract the largest amount of profit from the iniquity therein perpetrated ? UNPARALLELED WICKEDNESS. Is Christianity a name, or is it a principle 1 What an abomination it must be in the sight of a great and good Deity to behold national G 98 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING, prayers offered to Him to avert dispensation of calamity, while the very nation that is offering them is daily wflicting destitution and death on more than three millions of our fellow-creatures! Thus impiously seek- ing relief from its own suffering, while recklessly spreading sorrow, vice, and crime among myriads of mankind ! The records of wickedness since the world was created, furnish no parallel to the wholesale murders which the British nation have been, and still are, hourly committing in China. Neither are they committing this awful destruction of human beings in ignorance. There never was a question on which our Parlia- ment concurred more unanimously than on the iniquity of the opium trade ; no senator ventured to say that that good man Lord Ashley has exaggerated in the slightest degree the magnitude of the evils which his lordship implored, with an eloquence heightened by piety, the Legislature to correct. On the contrary, the assembled representatives of the nation, men of all parties, ministers and ex-ministers, concurred with the noble lord in the enormity of the crime we were perpetrating, deplored its continued existence, and promised its correction. Progress in Evil-doing. What has been done since on the subject 1 Have we simply remained passive, and allowed the crimes and the murders caused by the opium trade to go on silently, unnoticed and unapproved by Her Majesty's Government 1 We cannot even allege the poor miserable plea of wink- ing as a Government against a crime which it is pretended could not be checked. On the contrary, the representative of Queen Victoria has recently converted the small barren rock which we occupy on the coast of China into a vast 'opium- smoking shop;' he has made it the ' Gehenna of the waters,' where iniquities which it is pollution to name can not only be perpetrated with impunity, but are absolutely licensed in the name of our gracious sovereign, and protected by the titled representative of Her Majesty. Better — far better — infinitely better — abjure the name of Christianity, call ourselves heathens, idolaters of the * golden calf,' worshippers of the * evil one.' Let us do this, and we have then a principle for our guide, the acquisition of money at any cost, at any sacrifice. Why, the 'slave trade ' was merciful compared to the ' opium trade.' We did not destroy the bodies of the Africans, for it was our immediate interest to keep them alive; we did not debase their natures, cmrupt their minds, nor destroy their souls. But the opium-seller slays the body after he has corrupted, degraded, and annihilated the moral being of unhappy sinners, while every hour is bringing new victims to a Moloch which knows no satiety, and where the English murderer and the Chinese suicide vie with each other in offerings at his shrine. No blessing can be vouchsafed to England while this national crime is daily calling to Heaven for vengeance ; none of the millions of mere nominal Christians who throng our churches one day in the week, can expect to prosper in their worldly callings, while they are silently abetting an awful crime, which no sophistry can palliate, no ingenuity refute. We stand convicted before the nations of the world, as well as before SIR ARTHUR COTTON ON OPIUM. 99 an Omniscient Deity, from whom nothing can be hidden, as a Govern- ment and people actively and legally engaged in the perpetration of murder and desolation, on a scale of such magnitude as to defy calcula- tion. Disguise it as we may, this is the naked truth, — this is the damning fact, which no water will obliterate. We are all involved in the guilt, and participants, even by our silence, in a sin which, if not rooted out, must ere long bring on us that Divine ven.ujeance, which, though slow, is sure, and never invoked in vain. Finally, this report is dedicated (by gracious permission) to the Sovereign of the British nation, with an earnest prayer that the Almighty — by whose authority ' kings reign and princes decree justice ' — may influence the councils of Her Majesty to do that which is right in the sight of Him who declare th that ' they who set their heart on their iniquity will have the reward of their doings.' — From * China : Political, Commercial, and Social ;^ in an official report to Her Majesty's Government. LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SIR ARTHUR COTTON, K.C.S.I, ON THE OPIUM QUESTION. Sir Arthur Cotton's long connection with India gives weight to his opinion. For the information of any who may not be acquainted with his valuable services in India, we may quote the words of Sir Richard Temple, who says : — ' Of the many benefactors of India in recent times, there are few who have done more material good than Sir Arthur Cotton during this generation,' and that ' his name will be handed down to the grateful remembrance of posterity ' {India in 1880, by Sir Richard Temple, Bart., late Governor of Bombay, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and Finance Minister of India). DoKKiNG, May 6, 18S2. My dear Sir, — I should be greatly obliged to you if you could allow me to add my own particular views on the opium question to your pamphlet on the subject. In the course of my sixty years' connection with India, I have come to some conclusions, the result of actual experience, which bear in a particular manner upon the subject, and which certainly answer the main arguments of those who insist upon our continuing this trading upon the sins and miseries of the greatest nation in the world, in respect of population, on the ground of our needing the money. But before touching upon these points, it is essential that I insist upon the great fundamental point, which is quite independent of all secondary considerations. My foundation is this, ' Be not deceived ; God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man (or nation) soweth, that shall he also reap.' No power on earth can escape from this sentence. The harvest of money which we are at present reaping is not the harvest of this trade. The burglar congratulates himself on the contents of the purse, 100 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. which he looks upon as his harvest. But he learns what is really the harvest, when he finds himself commencing ten years' hard labour in gaol without remuneration, aggravated by an accusing conscience without one hope. The Americans thought their harvest was a few millions a year, extracted by the lash and secured by immeasurable crimes ; but the real harvest was the loss of a thousand millions of money, and a million of their most valuable lives, and many millions of bereaved fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, and dependants of all kinds. This was their proper harvest. What they sowed they also reaped. Every drop of blood drawn by the lash was, as Lincoln said, paid for by a bucketful drawn by the sword. We thus learn that there is a God in heaven, a God who is not mocked. We have already reaped in famines and mutiny, but assuredly all this is nothing to what is before us, if, in the face of God's dealings with America, and with ourselves, we persist in what is bringing utter destruction upon so many millions in China. Our shutting our own eyes to the wrong we are doing won't the least defer this harvest. All the subtle arguings about our need of the money, the supply of opium by other countries, the half-heartedness of the Chinese authorities, etc., won't affect the results a hair's-breadth. The question is between us and God. 'Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,' without the smallest diminution in consequence of what others may do, even the Chinese themselves. But now with reference to the aro;ument that we cannot do without this revenue from opium. My answer is, that it is utterly false. God has been pleased so to prosper our rule in India, that she is at this moment perfectly independent of this accursed money; and if we persist in the iniquity of obtaining revenue by forcing opium upon China, it must be in the face of the abundant prosperity which God has granted to India through our means. He is now acknowledging our, in the main, faithful, upright, laborious rule of India, by such a progress in material prosperity as never was seen in any country in the world, and I can see no cloud overhanging our rule there, except this astonishing national crime. The budget just published shows a clear large surplus of ordinary revenue over ordinary expenditure, exclusive of opium, and of the net returns from public works. The accounts of public works show a surplus of one million above the interest of the capital invested. But this account includes the loss upon the Indus railways, which cost twenty millions, and which are strategic and do not belong to tlie category of ordinary investments ; they belong to the class of wars, famines, etc., which are extraordinary expenditures, and should be a permanent charge upon the country, and not a charge upon the present generation. On these railways there is a net loss of about half a million a year, I calculate, leaving a clear surplus of one and a half million upon the proper ordinary public works investments. This is an astonishing result, when we remember that not one of these works is yet fully developed. A large proportion of them have only lately been opened, and are not yielding a quarter of their ultimate returns, some not even a tenth part, and some are not yet opened. When all thes3 are in extensive operation, it is certain that the returns will exceed the present amount by several millions. The two most THE OPIUM REVENUE NOT NECESSARY. loi costly works are at this moment returning ten per cent. net. But, again, these are only the direct returns in money. They do not include the indirect returns in the shape of ordinary taxes from the increased wealth of the people. Thus, while the Godavery irrigation returns £180,000 in water rates on an expenditure of £800,000, the increase of the whole revenue of the district is £400,000. The recent budget does at last acknowledge the flourishing state of Indian finance, and it takes off three millions of taxes ; and, by the way, this, to the honour of the present rule, entirely to the relief of the working-classes. But in spite of all the subtle arguments of great statesmen, honesty is the best policy. Most assuredly, the very first step to the thorough establishment of the finances on the soundest foundation, is the removal of this vile opium revenue. Happily nothing in the world is easier than to stop it. A field of poppies can't be con- cealed like a still, and the immediate and absolute prohibition of their cultivation can be carried out at once, though, of course, as in the case of slavery, many minor questions dependent upon it will have to be settled. The points I insist upon are, — (1) the ordinary revenue is now in excess of the ordinary expenditure, independent of the opium revenue ; (2) the extraordinary expenditure, that is, the cost of wars, famines, strategic works, etc., ought not to be laid upon the present generation, but be provided for by loans, ^5 th&y are in every other country ; (3) that we have now overwhelming proof, in the results of the present public works, that by the extension of such works we can abundantly provide for the interest, and even the gradual paying off of the principal, of any probable future extraordinary expenditure, provided only we don't pro- voke God to send us calamities beyond all calculation, and compel us, as He has done the United States, to lay on additional taxes, to the amount of fifty millions a year, to pay their slavery bill. How easily He can send a war or a mutiny, or at least a famine that will in a year sweep away all the millions we have made by this horrible trade ! It is quite certain that the present works will soon pay four or five millions a year above their interest, and that another hundred millions laid out in a similar manner would yield five millions a year more, above interest, in direct returns, besides the increase of ordinary taxes due to the increased income of the country from those works. (4) The whole value of the opium crop per acre is 15 lbs. at 8 J rupees (1200 rupees per chest of 140 lbs.), or 127 rupees; the sum stated by a local official in Behar to be the net projit to the ryot on an acre of sugar, making the value of the latter crop at least 200 rupees, so that the loss to India by the growth of opium in place of sugar is at least £7 per acre on 800,000 acres, or 5J millions annually. These are the essential points in the financial part of the question. I must add, What conceivable right have we to force upon another country the principles upon which she shall conduct her internal aff"airs? Why don't we treat with China as we do with France or the United States, respecting our external trade with her, and leave her to order her internal trade as she chooses 1 But now our threats are mere bluster. We are perfectly powerless in the matter ; no Government of England would dare for a moment to hint at another opium war. China has nothing to do but to prohibit instantly the importation of 102 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. opium, and we must accei3t her decision. She is most assuredly pre- paring to do this, and there is nothing whatever to prevent her doing it at this moment. A gentleman of property lately said to me, ' Can you tell me any- thing about this opium question % It appears to me it must be terribly wrong to make money by forcing this evil upon another nation.' I am confident that this gentleman was only the representative of the great mass of the people of England, and that nothing is wanting but infor- mation to rouse the whole body of the nation, and to bring such a hurricane of public opinion upon the authorities as will sweep away every thought of attempting to continue this inconceivable national crime. Who in England would not be horrified — even Sir G. Birdwood and Sir R Alcock themselves — at the thought of making money by intro- ducing oiDium into the families of their friends and neighbours, or fellow-workmen, with the certainty of bringing upon them incalculable misery % How much more to force it by tons upon a nation of four hundred millions, where already millions of families have been desolated beyond recovery ! — Believe me, ever yours, Arthur Cotton. B. Broomhall, Esq. IMPORTANT TESTIMONIES. Archbishop of Canterbury. 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. — S])eech at the Mansion House. The Archbishop of York ON the opium trade. We say that it is a wrong thing from first to last. We say that it is a disgrace and a shame to this country that a heathen people should have had to ask us to hold our hands and not to force the oj)ium upon them, and that we, as a Christian people, should refuse to hold our hand, and with fire and sword make them take this deadly drug, which they were willing to abandon. I don't excuse myself for not having attended to this subject before. . . . We have now got firm hold of this subject, and I should think ill of the human mind if we let it go before we had mastered it, and dealt it such a blow that it shall never recover. . . . This is a question aff'ecting the whole of the human race for whom Christ died. It affects this great country in its honour and its con- IMPORTANT TESTIMONIES. 103 sistency ; 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 especially 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 can't 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, depended eritirehj on the opium traffic, if it is a sinful and wrong traffic, w '. 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 in- difference ; 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 arrangements for the suj^pression of this iniquitous traffic. The Bishop of Madras on enuland waking up to the shameful wrong of forcing opium upon china. • The mind of England has at last awoke up to the shameful wrong which our Christian nation has for forty years past been inflicting upon China. Protectors of opium-smugglers, we forced the rulers of China, against their earnest protests, and with the powerful argument of our cannon, to open the ports for the admission of the drug, which was to besot and ruin the inhabitants of that vast empire by thousands, but would enrich the Indian exchequer. Missionaries and plenipotentiary have hitherto expostulated against the iniquity in vain. The contribution from opium traffic of about eight millions of pounds every year to the Indian revenue, acting like a bribe, has pro- moted the avoidance of the question as to the righteousness or unright- eousness of England's conduct towards China. But now the public conscience is awake, and we may reasonably expect that China's wrongs at our hands will undergo full investigation ; and that, if it should be found needful for righteousness' sake to sacrifice even the whole (which will, however, probably not be the case) of the opium revenue, our rulers will not hesitate to follow the dictates of justice and humanity, and suffer some inconvenience as retribution for the past injustice. And yet I am sure of this, that every sacrifice made in the name of God, either by an individual or by a nation, shall receive a full reward. We should never forget that reply of the prophet to Amaziah, the king of Judah, who had 'hired of the king of Israel a hundred I04 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. thousand men for a hundred talents of silver; and there came a man of God to him, saying, O King, let not the army of Israel go with thee : for the Lord God is not with Israel. And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel % And the man of God answered. The Lord is able to give thee much more than this ' (2 Chron. xxv. 7-9). By plenteous harvests, by increased and successful commerce, by averting wars, by a more widely extended spirit of honesty arid industry, and in a thousand ways, great and small, God is able, if He will, so to add to the material prosperity of this empire, that whatever is required for its government shall be raised without extraordinary measures, without any murmuring of the people. — Extract from Charge. The Earl of Shaftesbury on the opium traffic. Speaking at a meeting of the China Inland Mission, his lordship said : — Let every missionary, and every lay agent, and every woman, and every child refrain from being silent upon that question [the opium question]. The opium traffic is the greatest of modern abominations, and I believe that, unless it is corrected, it will bring upon this country of England one of the fiercest judgments that we have ever known. The late Rev. Dr. Morley Punshon, In the report prepared and read by him at the meeting of the "Wesleyan Missionary Society in Exeter Hall, said : — All through China the brethren still deplore the blight of the opium traffic, a greater national calamity than famine^ a calamity which enlightened heathen are urging a Christian nation, which first imposed it on them, to remove. Henry Richard, Esq., M.P., ON THE OPIUM trade. He had a firm conviction that no nation had ever been engaged in any business so absolutely indefensible on all moral and religious grounds as the traffic in opium. Even for the accursed slave trade something more plausible might be said than for the traffic in opium. It was said that by the slave trade good service was rendered to the African when he was carried away from the midst of pauperism and idolatry, and planted in the midst of a Christian community. But one thing only could be said for the traffic in opium, and that was that the Government wanted the revenue. It might be true that the opium which England was forcing upon the Chinese was spreading debauchery, demoralization, disease, and death among the Chinese — but there was the Indian revenue. It might be true that that traffic created an enormous amount of ill-will and heart-burning towards England on the part of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people, which had led IMPORTANT TESTIMONIES, 105 at least to one war and might lead to another — but there was the Indian revenue. It might be true that that traffic constituted the most formidable of all obstacles against the effort to spread Christianity amongst the Chinese, as the missionaries testified — but then there was the Indian revenue. It might be true that it interfered with the development of other and more legitimate commerce — but there was the Indian revenue. It might be true that it dishonoured the character of England in the eyes of other nations, and prevented England pro- testing against the iniquitous practices of other nations — but there was the Indian revenue. But the question he wished to ask was, 'Are financial considerations for ever to overrule those of justice, morality, and religion % ' Mr. Bourke Said in the House of Commons : — The opium question had often been debated in the House, and he had never heard any one say aught in favour of the opium traffic from a moral point of view. Resolutions passed at the Mansion House Meeting, Held by invitation of the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, on Friday, October 21st, 1881. 1. That in the opinion of this meeting the opium trade, as now carried on between India and China, is opposed alike to Christian and international morality and to the commercial interests of this country. 2. That in the opinion of this meeting it is the duty of this country, not only to put an end to the opium trade as now conducted, but to withdraw all encouragement from the growth of the poppy in India, except for strictly medicinal purposes, and to support the Chinese Government in its efforts to suppress the traffic. 3. That in the opinion of this meeting it will be the duty of this country to give such aid to the Government of India as may be found reasonable, in order to lessen the inconvenience resulting to its finances . from the adoption of the policy advocated in the previous resolutions. 4. That in the opinion of this meeting the results of the sale of opium in British Burmah are a disgrace to our Government of India, and demand the most thorough and immediate remedy. 5. That a deputation from this meeting be appointed to lay before the Prime Minister the foregoing resolutions, and to press upon him the duty of adopting the policy therein approved ; and that the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, chairman of the meeting, and the Right Hon. the Earl of Shaftesbury, President of the Society, be requested to take the necessary steps to give effect to this resolution. To6 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. PARLIAMENTARY ACTION. Notice of Motion by Sir J. W. Pease, M.P., In the Order Book of the House of Commons. Mr. Joseph Pease, — Opium, — That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that in the event of negotiations taking place between the Governments of Her Majesty and China, having reference to the duties levied on opium under the Treaty of Tien-tsin, the Government of Her Majesty will be pleased to intimate to the Govern- ment of China that in any such revision of that treaty the Government of China will be met as that of an independent State, having the full right to arrange its own import duties as may be deemed expedient. The following letters in reference to petitions to Parliament in support of the above motion have been published : — From His Grace the Archbishop of York. BisHOPTHORPE, York, March 20, 1882, My dear Sir, — I sincerely hope that the clergy of the northern province, and especially those of my own diocese, may be induced to petition Parliament on the subject of the opium trade. The question is, whether a nation, convinced that the traffic in opium is injurious to the peojile, is to be free to make its own regulations as to the importation of the drug, or is to be coerced by a stronger nation, that has a good deal of opium to ^ sell. China only asks for that power of self-government, in the matter of the opium traffic, which we exercise for ourselves in all matters. It is difficult to see any grounds for refusing such a right. That a Christian nation should be forcing the sale of a noxious drug upon a heathen nation that complains of and would reject it, is a sorry spectacle. — I am, yours very truly, Rev. Storrs Turner. W. EBOR. From the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Durham. Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland, March 23, 1882, Dear Sir, — The petitions in favour of Mr. Pease's motion have my cordial sympathy. It seems altogether unreasonable and unworthy of a Christian nation, that we should attempt to coerce China in the matter of the opium trade. You are at liberty to make what use of this letter you please. Yours faithfully. Rev. Storrs Turner. j, b. DUNELM. From the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Liverpool. The Palace, Liverpool, March 23, 1882. Sir,— I shall be very glad if the clergy of the diocese of Liverpool are disposed to assist you in procuring petitions to the House of Commons against the opium traffic with China. I am convinced that such traffic is indefensible on moral grounds, and I think it ought to be stopped, like the slave trade in the West Indies, whatever the present sacrifice may be. ' The blessing of the Lord alone maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow therewith,'— Yours faithfully, To the Secretary. j. c. LIVERPOOL, HOW WE TEMPT THE CHINESE. 107 From the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. The Palace, Exeter, March 25, 1882. SiR.^I do not think it possible to defend our treatment of China. No nation has a right to compel another to take its goods by force of arms, still less to take what cer- tainly may do much moral mischief, and what the weaker nation professes itself unwill- ing to receive on that very ground. We have no right whatever to force the Chinese to buy our opium. And the wrong is aggravated by the fact that we are Christians, and therefore doubly bound to act on high principles. Our conduct cannot but lower the Christian name in the eyes of all the heathen. I sincerely hope that many of the clergy of this diocese will join in petitioning Parliament to i^ut a stop to this scandalous injustice, and will induce others to join also. And you are quite at liberty to make use of this letter in any application you make to them. — Yours faithfully, Rev. Storrs Turner. F. EXON. HOW WE TEMPT THE CHINESE. MAKING IT AS ATTRACTIVE AS POSSIBLE. My own acquaintance with the subject dates from the year 1831, when in passing, by water, the chief opium magazine of the East India Company at Patna, I paid a visit to a friend who had charge of the scientific department of it. After he had led me through storey after storey, and gallery after gallery of the factory, with opium balls right and left, in tiers of shelves to the ceiling ; upon my expressing amaze- ment at an exhibition of opium, enough to supply the medical wants of the world for years, he replied nearly in these words : 'I see you are very innocent; these stores of opium have no such beneficent destination. It is all going to debauch the Chinese, alid my duty is to maintain its smack as attractive to them as possible. Come to my laboratory.' There I saw^ broken balls of opium, procured, I under- stood, from China, by the Bengal government, as approved musters [samples] for imitation by the cultivators. — From * The Traffic in Opium in the East ' (p. 10), hy Julius Jeffrey, F.B.S. Extracted from the Appendix to his larger work, ' the British Army in India.' OPIUM IN EXCHANGE FOR TEA. A THOUGHT FOR THE TEA-TABLE. Let us look our position fairly in the face. China sends this country vast supplies of tea and of silk. If we trace these to their ultimate distribution, we shall find them bringing increased comfort and happiness to nearly every family in the United Kingdom. Our return for these valuable commodities is made chiefly in opium ; and if we follow that article to the homes of its millions of consumers, we find that its mission is to debase and ruin, to lure its victims to a premature and utterly wretched end, and to plunge their families into destitution and misery. — Bev. James Johnston. io8 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING, SIGNS OF PEOGRESS. On every hand there are indications of the awaking of the public mind to the importance of the opium question. The progress of public opinion on the subject is very remarkable, and should encourage to more vigorous effort all who are working for the suppression of our opium trade with China. Of the many signs of progress the three following may be noted : — I. THE ACTION OF THE GREAT RELIGIOUS BODIES OF ENGLAND. Resolutions in condemnation of the opium trade have been passed in the most important representative meetings of the leading sections of the Christian Church, and petitions to Parliament have also been presented. Sir Edward Fry, in referring to this, says : — ' One petition was signed by Cardinal Manning and nearly all the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. The Convocation of the Province of York, after discussion, passed a strong resolution in condemnation of the trade. The Conference of the Wesleyans, the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of England, the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, the Baptist Union, the Primitive Methodists, the Congregational Union, the Unitarians, and the Positivists, have all, like the Society of Friends, joined in petitions or resolutions to the like effect. If only these bodies should eagerly and zealously insist on effect being given to their resolutions, a great step will have been gained towards the ultimate solution of the question. This expression of opinion on the part of the religious bodies of England, new, I believe, as regards its generality, is a fact which may well encourage the efforts of all interested in the question.' IL THE RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL TO RAISE A GUARANTEE FUND OF £25,000. The support given to the proposal to raise a large fund for the pur- pose of carrying on with greater vigour the work of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, is an unmistakeable sign of progress. Some who are in earnest in the matter, and who feel that it is only needful for the public mind to be fully informed upon the question, to ensure that China shall no longer be compelled to admit our opium, have promised to the guarantee fund sums as under : J. E. Wilson, Esq., J.P., £1000. Sir J. W. Pease, Bart., M.P., £1000. Arthur Albright, Esq., £500. Arthur Pease, Esq., M.P., £500. Samuel Smith, Esq., £500. J. G. Barclay, £250. J. C. Clayton, £250. W. Fowler, Esq., M.P., £250. Hugh Mason, Esq., M.P.,£250. Three Friends, £250. Thomas Harvey, Esq., £100. Peter Spence, Esq., £100. Miss Fife, £100. And many others from £1 to £50. S/GJVS OF PROGRESS. 109 III. THE SIGNATURES TO THE MEMORIAL TO MR. GLADSTONE. The memorial to Mr. Gladstone, imploring his ' powerful aid in setting right the relations between England and China as regards the opium trade, and so in removing a foul blot from our character as a civilised and Christian nation,' was signed by — The Archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin. The Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, Exeter, Gloucester and Bristol, Hereford, Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, PJpon, Salisbury, St. Albans, Winchester, Edinburgh, and Victoria. Deans of St. Paul's and Canterbury. Canons Gregory, Hoare, Stowell. The President of the Wesleyan Conference (Pev. G. Osborn, D.D.). The Chairman of the Congregational Union (Rev. Henry Allon, D.D.). The President of the Baptist Union (Rev. Henry Dowson). The Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Rev, W. Fleming Stevenson, D.D.). Rev. Principal Brown, D.D. (Aberdeen) ; Rev. Principal Cairns, D.D. (Edinburgh) ; Rev. Principal Douglas, D.D. (Glasgow) ; Rev. Principal Newth, D.D. (London); Rev. Wm. Arthur, M.A. ; Rev. T. Aveling, D.D. ; Rev. Horatius Bonar, D.D. ; Rev. Dawson Burns, M.A. ; Rev. Thain Davidson, D.D. ; Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. ; Rev. Newman Hall, LL.B. ; Rev. James Legge, D.D., Professor of Chinese, 3xford University; Rev. J. Kennedy, D.D. ; Rev. i\Jex. Maclaren, D.D. ; Rev. J. A. Macfadyen, M.A. ; Rev. W. B. Pope, D.D. ; Rev. John Stoughton, D.D. Cardinal Manning. Duke of Westminster. Earls of Shaftesbury and Cavan. Lords — Ebury, Pol war th, Rad stock. Judges— Sir Ed. Fry; the late Sir R. Lush. Members of Parliament — Wm. M 'Arthur ; J. W. Pease ; Samuel Morley ; W. S. Allen ; John Barran ; Hugh Birley ; H. Broadhurst ; W. S. Caine ; C. Cameron ; J. Cropper ; J. Passmore Edwards ; R. N. Fowler ; W. Fowler ; Theodore Fry ; J. H. Kennaway ; Hugh Mason ; Arthur Pease ; Henry Richard ; W. Archdale ; B. Armitage ; W. C. Borlase ; T. Burt ; T. Chambers ; J. C. Clark ; J. J. Colman ; Jesse Collings ; J. Corbett ; D. Davies ; R. Davies ; J. F. B. Firth ; Lewis Fry; T. Green; J. Rowley Hill ; W. Holmes; C. H. Hopwood; A. Illingworth ; W. H. James ; D. J. Jenkins ; T. Lea ; J. J. Leeman ; A. M'Arthur; P. M'Lagan ; C. M'Laren ; C. H. Meldon ; Arnold Morley; G. Palmer ; W. S. Palmer ; J. N. Richardson ; P. Kylands ; J. Simon ; J. C. Stevenson ; J. Stewart ; A. M. Sullivan ; T. H. Tillett ; B. Whit- worth; S. Williamson; J. Wilson; C. H. Wilson. Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur Cotton, K.C.S.L Lieutenant-General Tremenheere, C.B. Rev. Dr. Abbott, Head Master, City of London School. 110 THE TRUTH ABOUT OPIUM-SMOKING. Rev. Dr. Jex Blake, Head Master, Rugby School. Rev. Dr. Butler, Head Master, Harrow School. J. Agar, Esq., Lord Mayor of York. Sir Edward Baines; Sir Thomas Charley, Q.C.; Sir Wm. Collins; Samuel Budgett, Esq., Bristol; John Cory, Esq., Cardiff; Professor Beesley, University College, London ; Professor Leoni Levi, King's College, London ; Professor Cowell, Cambridge ; Professor Calderwood, Edinburgh ; Professor Green, Oxford ; Professor Geddes, Aberdeen ; Professor King, Oxford ; Rev. J. Percival, M.A., President of Trinity College, Oxford; Thomas Hughes, Esq., Q.C. ; David M'Laren, Esq., J. P., D.L., Edinburgh; Donald Matheson, Esq.; James E. Mathieson, Esq.; J. C. Parry, Esq.; Joseph Sturge, Esq., Birmingham; Samuel Smith, Esq., Liverpool; S. D. Waddy, Esq., Q.C. ; and many other persons of influence, including Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, Chairmen of School Boards, and thirty Mayors of Provincial towns. CHINESE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE OPIUM- SMOKER. The following illustrations by a Chinese artist are intended to represent different stages in the progress of the opium-smoker. The entire series, consisting of twelve sketches, have been beautifully coloured, and published with descriptive letterpress, by S. W. Partridge, 9 Pater- noster Row, London, and may be had through any bookseller. Price 6d. i THE opium-smoker's FIRST PIPE. H ENTREATED BY HIS FAMILY TO GIVE UP THE PIPE. 114 WIFE ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY HIS PIPE, ETC. 115 A HOUSELESS WANDERER. 116 v:"^^'***-*, ,-^^1 ^^' .■^ ••"V"^ ^ fei.;y;ii it,*^./ if-WRfcr 3^^ W> M i^ Ki ;''i«'i i«i^:.^'.r*<.-