THE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—The only consolation one has after enduring the lash of your criticism is that the Spectator will not, like some other journals, refuse to insert a few words of self-defence.
The exact rank of opium among the stimulants is a hotly-con- tested matter. Some, both friends and enemies, bracket it as on a par with whisky and gin. Others hold that it is indeed fairly classed with ardent spirits as to its injurious effects, but they by no means allow that it is a parallel case, because, say they, alcohol in moderate quantities is harmless, nay, wholesome, but opium is always and in any quantity poisonous. Even you yourself are in doubt as to the verdict to be passed on the habitual use of the drug, being inclined to think that physically it may be wholesome, but fearful that it undermines the moral character. That both physically and morally it is ruin to the Englishman, to the Assamese, to the Bengalee, you admit, but you think it is not proved to be similar in its action upon the Chinese. Now, the era of scientific investigation has not yet dawned upon China. We have no careful statistical inquiry to appeal to. A hundred eye-witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, and who have enjoyed and used excellent means of observation, assure us of the destructive effects of opium upon the Chinese. But then half a hundred, or if not so many, a score, of testimonies of men who ought to have been impartial and competent observers may be adduced on the other side. What, then, is to decide ? For ourselves, the preponderance of testimony may suffice. Or we may appeal from individual testimony to national. The Chinese nation, both by the consistent declarations of its Govern- ment and by unanimous public opinion, has branded opium- smoking as a far more ruinous vice than drunkenness. But what avails it to appeal to the testimony of the Chinese or to prepon- derance of evidence? It is easy to accuse the Chinese of in- sincerity, and the other side is so enormously weighted by the vast sum of money at stake, that a very little evidence in their favour turns the scale.
This being so, what would you have us do ? I infer from your scorn of our "moderate" and "reasonable" proposal, that you think we ought to do nothing, because we decline to attempt the impossible. We are not in possession of sufficient evidence to compel an indifferent, if not hostile, House of Commons to a -vote for total prohibition, and therefore we ought to sit still and -allow a grievous national wrong to flourish undisturbed. Such is
not our estimate of our duty. The only logical issue of your argument is that the Government should send out a Commission of inquiry to investigate the exact nature and amount of the injury its opium is inflicting upon China. Do you advocate that, if you think there is the remotest chance of your getting it appointed? As for us, we conceive that, without any farther in- quiry, taking the case as it stands, relying only on facts admitted by both sides, we have a clear and irresistible case, which only requires to be perseveringly presented to the British public and the House of Commons to be finally triumphant.
What are the facts ? The British-Indian Government holds and works a monoply of the production and sale of an article admitted by Sir George Balfour, Sir George Campbell. and Mr.
Laing to be "on a par with alcohol." This, Sir, we say, is a shameful thing. The Gothenburg parallel altogether fails to
support it. In that case, the Government undertakes the sale of intoxicating liquor to its own subjects, in order to restrain the con- sumption within reasonable bounds. In India the Government holds the monopoly of opium to get as much money out of it as possible. The vehemence with which it is asserted that monopoly is a form of taxation does not alter the facts. For seventy years our English rulers of India have been coining money by the increasing production of this drug, which is "on a par with alcohol." They believed it to be highly deleterious, they desired to shield their own subjects from its debasing influence, and they went on making more and more, for the injury of a foreign nation. It is simply false in fact to represent the monopoly as restrictive of production. What amount of opium would have been pro- duced between 1800 and 1875, if the Government had held no such peculiar relations to it, it is impossible to say. In all probability, but for the influence of the monopoly profits upon our foreign policy, the China trade would never have reached its present colossal proportions. But that is conjecture ; it is a fact that our British-Indian Government has by direct action im- mensely increased the production (from 5,000 to 50,000 chests), and that it has done this avowedly to get money. Now if you think anything gained by calling that a form of taxation, call it so, by all means. For our part, we prefer another form of taxation, one in which the Government has a less direct interest in the increase of vice.
Lord George Hamilton assumes, and you follow him, that the change of system we advocated will necessarily lead to increased cultivation of the poppy. This is purely gratuitous assumption, and we believe that we have good reason to expect the contrary. You are too well acquainted with history not to be aware that the Bengal opium monopoly and (what we regard as) our iniquitous support of the trade in China are inextricably bound up together. It is a mere question of Parliamentary tactics on which point the attack shall be first directed. If the monopoly is abandoned, our treaty stipulation with China will be given up. You may say this does not logically follow. I know it does not, but the fact would follow nevertheless, because the same foundation supports both, viz., the money. The Chinese Government once free, as it has a right to be free, to deal with opium in its own interests and those of its own subjects, the palmy days of the opium trade will be over. The wholesale smuggling of the past would be an anachro- nism in the future. China is not what she was, nor are we quite what we were. History does not repeat itself, and we have ample reason for anticipating that the abandonment of the monopoly would seriously cripple the Indian opium export. However, if the attack on the monopoly is so very irritating, it is quite possible that our Parliamentary friends may change the point of assault, and next session our treaty with China may be the theme of dis- cussion in the halls of St. Stephen's. Despite the unfriendly criticisms they have received from a portion of the Press, partly. per- haps, owing to the very meagre reports of most of the papers, I think they have no reason to be dissatisfied with the result. The debate was, as it was intended to be, an educational one, and unquestion- ably we ourselves, as well as our opponents, can learn useful lessons from it.—I am, Sir, &c.,
King Street, Westminster, S. W., July 5. F. S. TrIZSEII.
[Cannot Mr. Turner see that if the Government secures the free sale of opium in China to get money out of its monoply, it will secure the free sale to get money out of its export duty?—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
