HC Deb 03 April 1883 vol 277 cc1333-63
SIR JOSEPH PEASE

rose to move the following Resolution:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that in all negotiations which take place between the Governments of Her Majesty and China, having reference to the Duties levied on Opium under the Treaty of Tientsin, the Government of Her Majesty will be pleased to intimate to the Government of China that in any revision of that Treaty, or in any other negotiations on the subject of Opium, the Government of China will be met as that of an independent State, having the full right to arrange its own Import Duties. The hon. Baronet said: I think I am safe in saying that there is no question in this country which has taken so firm a hold of the public mind as the question of our opium trade with China, and the production of the drug in India. There has been an extensive agitation on the subject, although there has been but a comparatively small Society endeavouring to diffuse information—I believe that the whole cost to the Society during the last one or two years has not exceeded £2,000—nevertheless, there have actually been Petitions presented to this House during the last Session of Parliament against this traffic, signed by upwards of 75,000 persons. I believe that a larger number of signatures has been attached to these Petitions than has been attached to Petitions on almost any other subject which has been recently brought before Parliament. In dealing with the question of China, as my Motion does, I intend also to make certain remarks which I feel bound to make on the question as it affects India, the Indian Revenue, and the Indian Government. This forms a very large and a very important part of the general subject of the opium traffic; and, whatever the Government of India may say to the contrary, I have around me a large consensus of public opinion. As far as that large and important body, the Established Church of England, is concerned, I may say that the late Archbishop of Canterbury—a man whose memory everyone here holds in reverence—the present Archbishop of York, and a large number of the Bishops and clergy and congregations of the Church of England, have protested against the opium trade, and they have passed Resolutions at their respective Assemblies petitioning Parliament, besides taking other steps to show their assent to the movement for the suppression of the traffic. The whole question of the traffic has been very carefully inquired into. In addition to the Church of England, Petitions have been presented from all the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic priests, and Roman Catholic congregations, who have, from the first to the last, taken the strongest interest in the question of the opium trade with China. There is also a large Missionary body in China who have taken an active interest in putting down the use of this drug among the Christian converts in that country. I believe that there have been Petitions from Representative Bodies of all the Dissenting Churches in the Kingdom—Wesleyan, Independent, Congregational, Baptist, the Society of Friends, the English Presbyterian Synod, the United Methodist Free Churches, the Methodist New Connection, and many others. There has also been presented a considerable number of Petitions from most of the Presbyterian Bodies in Scotland, and the General Assemblies of the Church and of the Free Church of Scotland. All the Unitarian ministers and congregations and the Evangelical Alliance have repeatedly protested and petitioned in the same strain. Therefore, I say that around this question has been drawn the interests not only of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Bodies of Scotland, but the whole of the Dissenting Churches have given their testimony in regard to what they believe—and they are well able to speak upon the question—to be the immorality of the traffic carried on between India and China, which testimony I think the Indian Government ought, to some degree, to respect. But, in addition to this, we have had Petitions from many Secular Bodies, and one to which I should like to call the attention of this House to is a Memorial addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister during last year, which bears the signatures of both the Archbishops, and 12 Bishops of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Manning, the Presidents of the Wesleyan Conference, the Congregational Union, and the Baptist Union, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Duke of Westminster, and other Peers, 60 Members of Parliament, 30 Mayors and Provosts, 30 eminent medical men and Medical Missionaries, Chairmen of Chambers of Commerce and School Boards, Presidents of Liberal Associations, merchants, bankers, shipowners, Professors of the Universities, &c, &c.—361 in all. Now, I wish to ask my right hon. Friends who sit below me whether they can think that the Indian Government and the Foreign Office are right in allowing this trade to be carried on with China, when all these people, in whose opinion they must place the greatest confidence, have declared that they are wrong; that the trade is immoral; and that it is one which ought to be stopped in the interests of morality. Well, Sir, the question does seem to me to be a question which ought to be tried by public opinion; and I think that public opinion in this country has gone so far that it will render it very difficult for the Government of India to go on cultivating this traffic, and that it would have to seek for a sounder and better source of Revenue. Nor would the Foreign Office be able to insist upon China taking this drug and paying the duties we have imposed upon it. I have worded my Resolution, in the first instance, in order that I may deal with that which seems to me to be one of the first fringes of this question, and that is to test the sincerity of the Chinese. The noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) has laughed at the sincerity of the Chinese in this question; but I believe that the Chinese are perfectly sincere in the matter, and in expressing that opinion I believe I am expressing the view which is held by a gentleman who has represented us very ably for some considerable time in China. I refer to Sir Rutherford Alcock. In the evidence of Sir Rutherford Alcock, before the Finance Committee in India, he stated, in reply to Question 5,725— I have estimated the absolute interest of the Chinese Government in the Indian trade at about £1,500,000 sterling, and in reference to this I may mention that not only in the Conference that took place with the Ministers of the Tsungli-Yamên, a Minute of which I read at the last meeting of the Committee but also at different times officially or privately, they have shown the greatest readiness to give up the whole Revenue, if they could only induce the British Government to co-operate with them in any way to put it down. Sir Rutherford Alcock went on to say, in answer to Question 5,728— As regards the bearing upon the Government of China, if I had been enabled, during the recent revision of the Treaty, to hold out any distinct promise or assurance to them that, both as regarded Missionaries and opium, which are their two great grievances, something should be done more or less restrictive that would meet their wishes, I believe that I might have got any facilities for our trade that I had chosen to demand. My great difficulty was that I could offer them nothing in either direction. Well, Sir, I ask, at the present moment, that no pressure should be placed upon the Chinese as to what duties, Imperial or otherwise, shall be imposed on China by the Foreign Office at the instigation of the Government of India. That is the simple Resolution which I propose to ask the House to assent to. I ask that the Government of China shall be treated as we should treat France or Germany, or any other independent Power which we considered equal to ourselves. I have heard the argument used, over and over again, that we have never forced opium upon the Chinese. I think the least we can say to China at the present moment is, that whether we forced opium upon them, or did not force it, we shall now leave the Chinese people at liberty to deal with the duties in regard to the drug as they like. But I say that the evidence, in spite of all that has been said by Secretaries of Legation and others, is overwhelming that we did, and do, force this opium traffic upon China. I do not know that I can read anything which will have more weight with the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues than the words of the Prime Minister himself, which I have before quoted in this House, and which were used in reference to the war in 1840. On this occasion the Prime Minister said— They gave you notice to abandon your contraband trade. When they found that you would not, they had a right to drive you from their coasts on account of your obstinacy in persisting in this infamous and atrocious traffic. You allowed your agent to aid and abet those who were concerned in carrying on that trade; and I do not know how it can be urged as a crime against the Chinese that they refused provisions to those who refused obedience to their laws whilst residing within their territories.…A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I have not read of. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke last night in eloquent terms of the British flag waving in glory at Canton.…That flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic, and if it were never to be hoisted except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror.…Although the Chinese were undoubtedly guilty of much absurd phraseology, of no little ostentatious pride, and of some excess, justice, in my opinion, is with them; and that whilst they, the pagans, and semi-civilized barbarians, have it, we, the enlightened and civilized Christians, are pursuing objects at variance both with justice and with religion."—(3 Hansard, [53] 818–19.) Again, in a letter written in 1880, the right hon. Gentleman said— I have witnessed three wars in China. The two first of these wars were directly connected with the opium traffic, and grew out of it; and I was amongst the most earnest, and, I may say, the most determined opponents of both those wars. I have many other quotations here; but I will not trouble the House with them. Sir Thomas Wade wrote, in] his Memorandum on the revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin— We are generally prone to forget that the footing we have in China has been obtained by force alone; and that, unwarlike and unenergetic as we hold the Chinese to be, it is, in reality, to the fear of force alone that we are indebted for the safety we enjoy at certain points accessible to our force.…Nothing that has been gained, it must be remembered, was received from the free will of the Chinese; more, the concessions made to us have been, from first to last, extorted against the conscience of the nation. Sir Rutherford Alcock came to exactly the same conclusion. He was examined by my late hon. Friend, Mr. J. B. Smith, and he was asked—"We force them by Treaty to take it from us?" to which he replied—"That is so in effect." I think I need not go further into this question as to whether we forced the opium traffic upon China or not. We forced the whole Treaty of Tien-Tsin on China, and this duty was part of that Treaty. We have merely to say to the Chinese that, whatever we did in those days, it is different now, and that we are prepared to give up these obnoxious duties in such a manner as the Chinese may think for the best. A great deal has lately been said in favour of the drug itself, and in a manner which has certainly surprised me. The more I have looked into the question, the more satisfied I have become as to the demoralizing influences which this drug produces upon all who deal with it or who trade in it, and the more I am satisfied that the course I am now urging upon the House and upon the country is the only course that is justifiable. The principal advocates I have heard for retaining the traffic have been my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and Sir George Birdwood, whose letters have lately been published, and who is a gentleman who holds a very honourable position in the India Office. But what does Sir George Birdwood say? In the course of these letters there are only two short paragraphs which I will venture to read to the House. He says— I am not approving the use of stimulants—I have long since ceased to do so. I am only protesting 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 T feel bound to publicly express these convictions, 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. Be that as it may, all I insist on is the downright innocency in itself of opium smoking; and that, therefore, as 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, we are as free to introduce opium into China, and to raise a Revenue from it in India, as to export our cotton, iron, and woollen manufactures to France. Now, I will hand Sir George Birdwood over to the tender mercies of his own Profession, who have given an unanswerable declaration upon this subject, and which has never been contradicted; and also to the experiments which have been tried by Professor Gamgee with unanswerable results. I believe that Professor Gamgee, a resident of Manchester, is a gentleman well known to the Under Secretary of State for India. The Lancet, in a leading article, says— The opium-eater, after a very brief habituation, is wretched and feeble without his artificial strength, and the moderate employment of opium is comparable rather to what is now regarded as the habitually excessive use of alcohol than to its really moderate use. The moderate and even the minimum opium-eater is a slave to his stimulant as the moderate alcohol-drinker is not. The testimony on this point is overwhelming, and so, also, is the evidence of the rapidity with which the opium-eater becomes enslaved, and the extreme difficulty and rarity of rescue. The mass of evidence on this point—as an example of which we may mention the Chinese Consular Reports lately referred to in those columns—is altogether ignored by Mr. Moore, and, à fortiori, by Sir George Birdwood, the former contenting himself with a covert sneer at the statements of Missionaries (who have probably enjoyed better opportunities for observation than anyone else), and by the assertion and demonstration of the fact that recovery from the opium habit is a possible thing, which no one dreamed of denying. It is, moreover, difficult to attach much weight to an opinion of a writer who at one page admits that 'confessedly the practice of using opium, in common with indulgence in alcohol, exerts sufficient deleterious influences,' and at another asserts that 'the moderate use of opium is, under innumerable circumstances, beneficial to mankind both in health and sickness,' and who deliberately defends as harmless the habitual administration of opium to young children. Then I think the testimony from China itself, and from all those who have been engaged in China, is overwhelming; but I cannot trouble the House with one-half of the instances which I hold in my hand. Let me, however, take two or three of them. I will quote Sir Rutherford Alcock as one of my testimonies. He says—in answer to the Question— Can the evils physical, moral, commercial, and political, as respects individuals, be exaggerated?—I have no doubt that where there is a great amount of evil, there is always a certain danger of exaggeration. It is difficult not to conclude that what we hear of it is essentially true; that it is a source of impoverishment and ruin to families. Sir Thomas Wade, our present Representative to China, at this moment in this country, in a Memorandum of the revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, writes thus— It is to me vain to think otherwise of the use of the drug in China than as of a habit many times more pernicious, nationally speaking, than the gin and whisky drinking which we deplore at home. It takes possession more insidiously, and keeps its hold to the full as tenaciously. I know no case of radical cure. It has insured, in every case within my knowledge, the steady descent, moral and physical, of the smoker, and it is, so far, a greater mischief than drink—that it does not by external evidence of its effects expose its victim to the loss of a repute which is the penalty of habitual drunkenness. There is reason to fear that a higher class than used to smoke in Commander Lin's day are now taking to the practice. The same evidence was given by Mr. David Hill, a Missionary of very large experience in China, and a gentleman very well known in the City of York. Mr. Hill, who is connected with the Wesleyan Missionary Society, and returned to this country after having been for 14 years out there, told me— The effects of opium smoking upon the Chinese generally has again and again been depicted to the British public in strong and earnest language; but never I think too strong, and certainly never too earnest. No language can fully picture to others the deplorable consequences of opium smoking, which I have myself soon in China, even in the case of some of my own Chinese acquaintances. I hold in my hand copies of the opinions of Dr. Kerr, a Medical Missionary at Canton for more than 20 years; of Mr. Winchester, Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai; of Dr. Gauld, who was connected with the English Presbyterian Medical Mission at Swatow; and of Dr. Osgood, of the Foochow Medical Missionary Hospital, from whose statement I will read one passage. Dr. Osgood says— In all, over 1,100 cases have been treated. As a majority of these cases have come under my personal supervision, day after day, I hope that I shall not be accused of egotism or cant when I write that, in my opinion, the use of opium is an unmitigated curse. He also says— I have never yet heard a heathen Chinaman defend the use or sale of opium; but, on the contrary, they universally condemn them. The only apologists for the use of opium have been representatives of Christian lands, many of whom have had but little practical knowledge of the evil resulting from the use of opium. Well Sir, there was a very remarkable gathering that I had the pleasure of attending—of the Chinese Missionaries, at Exeter Hall. It was held one day last year, and the verdict of all the Missionaries of China was unanimous in regard to the ruinous results upon the Chinese people of opium smoking. Therefore, I think this evidence, which cannot for a moment be contradicted, is of the highest value. Sir Rutherford Alcock seems lately to have altered his views. I wish to say nothing disrespectful of Sir Rutherford Alcock. Sir Rutherford Alcock ably represented us in China for a long time; he is now placed in an altered position. He has become the Chairman of the British Borneo Company. The British Borneo Company, to the great scandal of this country, have, in their Charter given to them by Her Majesty's Government, the power of dealing with this drug in Borneo; and in Article 15 of the Charter there is a Section (VII.) which gives the Company the power of monopolists in dealing with and selling opium. I do not mean to say that Sir Rutherford Alcock's views have altered because he has altered his position in life; but it is a rather singular thing that he should now be writing in favour of the use of this drug, after the evidence which he gave before the Committee which inquired into the question in relation to Indian finance. There is another argument which is sometimes used in these debates. I have heard it often said that the English, who indulge in excessive drinking, are the last persons who ought to protest against the use of opium. Now, I never could see the force of that argument. I think it is proved abundantly that the use of the drug by the Chinese is a very much worse thing than the use of almost any quantity of alcoholic drink. But, on the other hand, if things are allowed to happen in our own country which are a great disgrace to it, and which many of us have been labouring to put down by wise and prudent and careful measures of legislation—because the people of this country do wrong by using alcoholic liquors to excess—that can be no possible reason why the Government of India should live upon poisoning the Chinese, or why the Revenue of India should be raised at the expense of the physical and moral corruption of the Chinese people. I hold in my hand Papers which were moved for in 1881 on the consumption of opium in British Burmah. The Indian Government seems to have acted with great fairness, but with great firmness, in reference to the question of the opium trade in British Burmah. In a Memorandum written by Mr. Aitchison, late Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, dated Rangoon, April 30, 1880, he says— The Papers now submitted for consideration present a painful picture of the demoralization, misery, and ruin produced among the Burmese by opium smoking. Responsible officers in all divisions and districts of the Province, and Natives everywhere, bear testimony to it. To facilitate examination of the evidence on this point, I have thrown some extracts from the Reports into an Appendix to this Memorandum. These show that among the Burmans the habitual use of the drug saps the physical and mental energies, destroys the nerves, emaciates the body, predisposes to disease, induces indolent and filthy habits of life, destroys self-respect, is one of the most fertile sources of misery, destitution, and crime, fills the gaol with men of relaxed frame, predisposed to dysentery and cholera, prevents the due extension of cultivation and the development of the land revenue, checks the natural growth of the population, and enfeebles the constitution of succeeding generations. That passage is not written by any member of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, but by one of Her Majesty's Representatives in British Burmah, who brings together the whole of the evidence contained in this Paper, and upon such evidence the Indian Government took almost immediate and strong action. In the Report of the Administration for British Burmah, of 1880–1, it is stated— In April, 1880, 40 licensed opium shops were closed, leaving 28 still open, and the price of Government opium was raised 30 per cent. It is proposed to close nine more shops on the 1st of April next, and to restrict the issues of Government opium to the holders of some of the remaining shops.…It is anticipated that the measures which are being taken will eventually cause a loss of from £50,000 to £70,000 of provincial revenue. In the Kyonkpyoi district the shops were reduced from five to one. There can be no doubt that all respectable classes of the people felt strongly on the opium question. Christian Missionaries and European officers who go much among the people share this feeling. Indulgence in opium sent a certain number into the lunatic asylum and a larger number into gaol. The name of opium smoker was a term of reproach throughout the country. Under these circumstances, it was clearly right to comply with the wishes of the people, and to restrict the consumption of opium.…The recent measures were proposed and were sanctioned by the present Chief Commissioner, and were sanctioned by the present Government of India, because they were demanded by the voice of the people, and because they were deemed to be right. It is absurd for people to say that that which is good and right for Burmah is bad for China, and that the opium traffic ought to be maintained for the benefit of the Revenue of India. But the matter does not end here. I am told that the Government of Bombay are negotiating with the head Government—my hon. Friend (Mr. J. K. Cross) will correct me if I am wrong—and they say— The Government consider there are very strong objections to the introduction of an industry so demoralizing in its tendency as opium cultivation and manufacture into a Province where at present it is unknown, and, so far as His Excellency in Council is aware, not asked for by the people. If opium cultivation were allowed in Scinde, it could not, with consistency, be prohibited in the rest of the Presidency. It has already been tried in Gujerat, and the result was wide-spread corruption and demoralization. At present the consumption of opium in this Presidency is very limited; but if the cultivation of opium and manufacture of opium were permitted, every village might have its opium shop, and every cultivator might contract the habit of eating a drug which is said to degrade and demoralize those who become addicted to it. On the ground of public morality, therefore, His Excellency the Governor in Council would strongly deprecate the grant of permission to cultivate the poppy in Scinde, or in any other part of this Presidency. I contend that the Indian Government seems to be doing what is right and wise at home; but they are doing an unfortunate thing if they are urging the Foreign Office still to dictate terms to the people of China on the question of the duty on this drug, and are guilty of gross inconsistency. Now, Sir, I think I have proved that this drug is demoralizing; that it is bad; and that we, a civilized, moral, and Christian people, should not deal with it. I find that there are Treaties existing between America and China, and between Russia and China, and in both these Treaties the Chinese Government has insisted that these two countries shall not take any part in the opium traffic. If the opium traffic is helpful to the people of China, surely such a stipulation is not necessary? But our American friends are beginning to find out that the use of this drug, as introduced into California by the Chinese, is demoralizing to their people, and they have already passed a statute on the subject. I find, in that excellent book of Dr. Kane's on Opium Smoking in America and China, that the habit of opium smoking is described as most fascinating. It ensnares individuals in all classes of society, leading to the downfall of innocent girls, and the debasement of married women, and spreading its roots and growing in spite of the most stringent measures tending to its eradication. Dr. Shurtleff again writes that the laws for the suppression of this vice were manifestly deficient until last winter, when the Legislature added a new section to the Penal Code of this State, which is as follows:— Every person who opens, or maintains to be resorted to by other persons, any place where opium or any of its preparations is sold or given away to be smoked at such place; and any person who at such places sells or gives away any opium or its said preparations to be smoked or otherwise used; and every person who visits or resorts to any such place for the purpose of smoking opium or its said preparations, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 500 dollars, or by imprisonment in the county gaol not exceeding six months, both such fine and imprisonment. Therefore, in America they find that this drug is as evil in its effects as in China; and, until some argument is brought to the contrary to convince me, I shall hold to the opinion that this method of raising the Indian Revenue is demoralizing to a friendly, if somewhat barbaric, people. Another argument was used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the course of one of the debates on this subject, that it was the smuggling of opium which brought us into this traffic, and that if we do not continue it as a legal trade we should then get into the difficulty that always arises: when a contraband trade has been brought about by the large duties which have been levied on the article in question. Mr. Commissioner Aitchison says—"The evasion of the Revenue is not to be compared with the gradual demoralization of the people." That is his view, and I believe it to be the view of the Indian Government, and that it will be the view of this House. But what was our conduct towards China? Our conduct towards China comprised the abetting of smuggling. The Arrow, while sailing under false colours, was seized by the Chinese authorities in a way which was perfectly right, as was afterwards clearly demonstrated. But we went to war with the Chinese, and we punished the Chinese. Now I come to that which is, perhaps, the most difficult part of the question, and that is the subject of the Indian Revenue. This has been, from first to last, the great difficulty in dealing with the question of opium. I have looked carefully through the records of the Indian Revenue for some time back; and I have come to the conclusion that if the Government of India once make up their minds to do without the Revenue from opium they would without difficulty be able to find a way to do so. There have been a great many things said on this question, and the noble Marquess who is now the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) said that, while we were trying to protect the Chinese, we were endeavouring to put burdens on the poor people of India, who were very little able to bear them. But I would show how many burdens the poor people of India can be relieved from. I sat some time on the "Public Works Committee, India," and a great deal of evidence as to the want of power in India to bear taxation was brought before us. There are Memorandums in existence, one by Lord Mayo and one by Lord Northbrook, in which they specify a certain Army as necessary for India. Is there any reason for still exceeding the limit fixed by those experienced Governors? But, lastly, the Indian Revenue showed a considerable surplus. If I recollect right, the Indian revenue from the opium traffic was about £5,000,000 sterling year by year. It has run up to £6,500,000, and has gone down below £5,000,000. But, in the meantime, while it has been at rather a higher figure, the stock of opium has considerably gone down. Instead of dealing with the opium question last year, the Indian Government dealt with the salt duty—a very necessary thing, no doubt, to pay attention to this tax—and also with the duties on imports. But I cannot help thinking that the latter, at any rate, was not one of those questions that required immediate attention. It was certainly not asked for by the people of India, but it pleased the people of Manchester. I very much doubt, however, whether the Indian Government were justified in taking off the duty on cotton goods when they had so large a portion of the Revenue due to opium. I wish, in conclusion, to say that I think we are bound to look at the manner in which my Motion, if carried, might affect the Revenue of India. In the Petitions which I have had the honour to present to the House, that has been dealt with by those who have signed them, who have expressed their desire that the people of this country should be temporarily taxed, if it should be necessary for India to give up a portion of her Revenue. It would be only a portion that would be required under any circumstances. There are several Indian financiers who have laid down very strongly that there are various items in which India could save. My hon. Friend sitting below me (Mr. J. K. Cross) said, in one of his speeches on Indian Finance, that 35 per cent of the money spent on public works was spent in establishment charges which could be saved without difficulty if a certain course of policy were pursued. Then the Indian Finance Committee of 1874 reported that certain Indian charges should be borne by England. I believe none of the charges touched upon in that Report have yet been placed upon England. Whether the Indian Government can make the present sacrifice without help I cannot say; but when I turn to the ever increasing revenue of the Indian railways, to the steady development of the country, and to the probability that the Empire will still further develop in time of peace, with proper care of her resources, I have little hesitation in saying that, if Her Majesty's Government once make up their minds that they will gradually diminish their revenue from the poppy, they will find India able to exist, and exist well, without having any reliance on this source of Revenue. But I shall be asked if the House of Commons should take away this source of Revenue when the people of China cultivate vast fields of this drug for their own consumption? All the evidence, however, which is before this House shows that we were parties in the matter, and that we have forced opium upon the Chinese in a way which rendered it perfectly impossible for the Chinese Government to put an end to the cultivation in its own territory. It does not matter, in my view, whether the Chinese grow the poppy themselves or not—whether they get it from Persia or Turkey, or anywhere else. I say that we, as a Christian country, believing in the laws of morality and religion, have no right to be participators in a trade which brings demoralization and death and disease upon those with whom we profess to have friendly relations. I take a strong and a high ground in this matter; and I think I have proved that this trade has been forced on the people of China from the days of the Chinese War up to the present time; that we have never let the Chinese be free agents in the matter; that the duties we arranged under the Treaty of Tien-Tsin are still enforced; that the use of this drug is uniformly demoralizing and injurious to the Chinese; and that there can be no qualification to the statement. Therefore, I say that our first step, if we take this view of the case, is to say to the Chinese that in any Treaty which we make with them—whether it relates to the Treaty of Chefoo and the municipal duties, or to the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, which deals with the Imperial duties—we will treat you as any other independent Power of equal strength and position to ourselves; and whatever duties you think fit to make in the interests of your Revenue or your people we leave to you. We ask no more, and we want no more, than this; and I leave the matter in the hands of the House, thanking the House for the patience with which it has listened to me upon a question in which I take so deep an interest.

MR. S. SMITH

*: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), and, in doing so, I will say that I think the able speech which he has delivered must have carried conviction to this House. He has set before us so fully the evidence showing the unjust character of our past treatment of China, and the very pernicious effects of the opium traffic on the people of China, that I think little more requires to be said in that connection. The time has passed when it is necessary to discuss the question of the morality or immorality of our past dealings with China. The verdict of all impartial historians is against our country. It seems to me that there can be no difference of opinion amongst honest men, that the conduct of this country towards China has been shameful and unjust in the highest degree, and that we have been the means of inflicting upon the people of China one of the greatest curses which ever befell a nation. But it is not of much use to go back upon past events which we cannot recall. The point which we have now to discuss as reasonable men is, what amends can we make for our past misconduct—what remedy can we offer for those great evils which we all deplore? I admit that the evils have now become so vast and so difficult to grapple with, that one may well be appalled at their magnitude, and feel almost discouraged at attempting to prescribe a remedy. In thinking over this matter, I have felt the full force of this view. I have felt, as many have done, that we have so inoculated the Chinese with a taste for this poisonous stuff, that it will be almost impossible to stamp it out. We have forced the Chinese to legalize the import of a drug which their Government earnestly sought to exclude. We have taken away from them all inducement to abstain from the cultivation themselves; we have stimulated the culture all over that country, and thereby have given a great excuse to the Indian Government for persisting in forcing this trade on China. This is the state of things which we have now to confront; and the question which we have to ask ourselves is, what can we do, as just and reasonable men, to atone for the past, and bring about a happier state of things in the future? I think it will be more fitting for me now to deal with some of the objections against the course which is advocated by the Motion of my hon. Friend. I need not go back to the history of our dealings with China, and I deed scarcely allude to the almost universally admitted pernicious effect of opium smoking. The first great objection is that it is now too late to apply a remedy. Our opponents say that the evil has been done, and has become so universal that it is in vain for us to attempt to grapple with it; that the Chinese will have opium, and that we may as well poison them as anyone else. Now I cannot sit down under that view of the subject. I cannot feel that it is the right view for any man to take who seeks to do justice to his fellow-men. It puts this country in a false position. It seems to me to be an immoral argument, and I hope that this House will never agree to any argument which appears in its judgment to be immoral. I think the least we can do is to leave the Chinese Government to deal with the matter as its own sense of justice leads it to act. The Motion of my hon. Friend asks nothing more than that. I think it is the very minimum of reparation that this country can offer to China. Now, it may be said that anything the Chinese Government may do is inadequate to cope with the evil. I admit that it will take a long time, even with the most beneficent Government in China, to very greatly mitigate this national evil. But that is no reason why it should not attempt to do something, and it cannot begin the attempt until we leave its hands free. What we ask is, that England should allow the Chinese Government to restrict the import of opium according as it thinks best. The Chinese Government has no encouragement to stop the growth of opium so long as we compel it to receive it from India. But let us grant it power to restrict, as it thinks fit, the import of opium, and it will have at once a strong inducement to limit the home growth. Therefore, I think that this objection is one which the House will not consider good. Then I will deal with another objection, which is raised, at all events, by the Indian Government—the objection to which my hon. Friend has already alluded—that India cannot dispense with this large revenue. The hon. Member put it as forming one-eighth of the Revenue of India; but I should think that too low an estimate. It may be one-sixth to one-eighth. Now, I know well that India is a poor country, that its resources are strained considerably, and that we cannot tax it much more heavily than now. I quite admit that at present we cannot face the question of extinguishing the opium traffic without proposing some substitute for yielding the revenue that we should lose. But I think the Motion we propose will not seriously affect the Indian Revenue for some time to come. It is not likely that the Chinese Government will attempt to prevent the import of opium, even if we agree to this Motion. But it might wish, in the first instance, to increase the tariff considerably, so as to limit the import of the foreign product, and then restrict the home product in the way which it thinks best. I think it could be shown that the real interest of the Chinese Government is to tolerate the foreign, rather than the home product. The collection of Excise duties over the whole extent of China would be an almost impossible method of taxation. The Chinese Government, therefore, as far as Revenue is concerned, would rather permit the import of foreign opium than the growth of the home product. Then we must be aware that China is liable to serious famines. It is not a long time since the Chinese people were afflicted with this terrible scourge, and many millions perished. It is not likely, for this reason, that their Government will give much encouragement to the home growth, and so I hold that, if we grant this moderate concession to China, the probability is that the reduction in the trade between India and China would be very gradual, and would not press with any great suddenness on the Revenue of India. But, as has already been said, I am sure that this country would be ready to make some contribution to the Revenue of India if necessary. I hold that it is bound to do so. This country was the author of the present trouble. The people of India were never consulted in the matter, and we are bound to accept the consequences of our own actions, and bear at least a portion of the cost of atonement. Should it be found necessary for a few years to add 1d. to the Income Tax for this purpose, I think there will be no indisposition to yield that moderate amount of assistance. Then we are told that another objection is that it will encourage smuggling in China. Undoubtedly, that, at first, seems a serious question. Smuggling was the cause of the first China War; but the remedy lies in the hands of the Indian Government. If it will sell the opium to responsible merchants, who will give bail that they will deliver it into the Chinese bonded warehouses, the difficulty will be met; the Indian Government can put its hands on all the opium exported, and if it was in earnest, could arrange that it should be conveyed to China in such a way as to prevent smuggling. The last objection is, that if we retire from this trade, or even withdraw in some degree, other countries will step in. Persia, for instance, is exporting increasingly large quantities of opium; but we know that any Treaty we apply to China on the subject of opium will apply all round. China will be only too glad to apply the same restrictions to other foreign opium. Now, these appear to be the chief objections against the very moderate change advocated. Let us look for a moment at the advantages to be derived. The first is that we shall thereby do something to conciliate the people of that vast Empire. We have done nothing hitherto to conciliate them. We have done everything to make them our enemies. We have done everything to make them hate us and European civilization. Now let us do something to try and conciliate a population which is supposed by some to be equal to one-fourth of the whole of the inhabitants of the globe. I think that is not a small object, and I think it would be a worthy object. I cannot conceive an object more worthy a country like this than to make 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people in China think of us as friends instead of enemies. In the event of a possible struggle with Russia for our Indian Empire, which I trust may never occur, the good feeling of the Chinese population towards us would be an important element, and I think we should endeavour to cultivate the friendship of this great nation. Now I lay great stress upon the effect which friendly feeling with China would have upon our trade with that great Empire. Our trade with China has been miserably small hitherto. On examining the Board of Trade Returns for last year, I find that we only sent to China £7,500,000 worth of British products as against £29,000,000 worth sent to India. Now, China has a much larger and more industrious population than India; we have almost free trade with China; so there is no reason whatsoever why we should send so little produce there as compared with that sent to India. As a matter of fact, last year we only sent to China, with its 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people, as much of our products as we sent to South Africa. We exported less than we sent to Belgium, and less than half of what we sent to Australia. On the Manchester Exchange, there is nothing that excites so much astonishment as the little elasticity of our trade with China. Now let us ask ourselves the reason. The reason is obvious. It is because, in the first place, the resources of the people of China are wasted upon opium; and, in the second place, because the hostility of the Chinese to the opium trade excites hostility to all foreign trade. These are the two reasons why our trade with China is so poor and so languid; and I maintain that the people of this country have lost quite as much in their diminished trade with China as the Government of India has gained by the opium revenue. If a profit and loss account were drawn up, it would be shown that the people of England, and especially the people of Lancashire, have lost as much or more in their intercourse with China than the Indian Government has gained by the sale of opium. I fully believe that, if we only change our policy with respect to the opium trade, and make China our friend instead of our foe, there will be no limit to the growth of trade that will take place with that vast country. At the present time the outlets for British capital seem almost choked up. There is nothing this country needs so much as a large field for the investment of its capital. What field in the world would equal China with its hundreds of millions of industrious, hard-working people? Supposing we make ourselves the friends of China, so that it would be willing to increase its intercourse with England, I see no reason why we should not in the next 20 or 30 years do as large a trade with China as we now do with India; we should more than make up for any temporary loss we might sustain in the falling off of the opium revenue. Another advantage that we should gain by the change of policy I have suggested, is that we should be raised in the estimation of all the nations of the world. This country suffers very much in loss of reputation on account of its connection with the opium trade. Wherever you go—in America, Germany, or elsewhere—if you speak with enlightened foreigners concerning the policy of this country, they at once put their finger on the opium trade. There cannot be any doubt that, in the eyes of the whole world, our connection with this trade appears a great blot on our national character, a great stain upon our escutcheon. By the proposed change of policy, we should get back in the estimation of the world far more than sufficient to compensate for any little temporary sacrifice we might be required to make. Then, again, in performing this great act of justice we should remove from the minds of many of our own people the painful consciousness that we were engaged in an iniquitous trade. The opium trade is one of the great national sins that this country has not yet atoned for. Many politicians are not aware of the strong feeling there is throughout the country on this matter. It would, indeed, be a wonderful relief to many people to know that we were altering our course. Furthermore, I maintain that, by the abolition of the opium trade, we should give Christianity a chance. At present, we give Christianity hardly any chance at all. In this country we have reaped the blessings of Christianity, and, surely, we ought to be alive to the responsibility of presenting our religion in its true light to the 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 of people in China. We have, however, contrived to make Christianity abhorrent to the Chinese. We have approached them with the cup of vice in one hand, and with the Bible in the other hand. We have given them the impression that our Christianity is a huge hypocrisy, on account of the cruel and unjust way in which from the very first we have treated them. The change of policy we desire will bring blessings on our own country. I believe that in every nation the moral and material go hand in hand. I believe that a country which takes the right course will always gain by it. I believe that the world is governed by providential laws, and that "righteousness exalteth a nation." I am sure that if we deal with China honestly we shall do so in the interest of our own country. I would recommend the application to China of the golden rule of "doing to others as we would wish to be done by." We wish to allow the Government of China to protect its subjects in the same way as the Government of India protects its subjects. The Government of India takes care to prevent the taste for this noxious drug spreading. I hope it will always do so; I have no wish to see the use of opium spreading in India, and I think the Government is doing its best to minimize the danger by keeping the trade in its own hands. It is also acting wisely in preventing the introduction of foreign opium. Surely, the Chinese Government ought to be permitted to be the judge of the interests of its people in the same way as the Indian Government is the judge of the interests of its people. We ask that the Government of China shall be allowed to do as the Government of Japan does. The Japanese Government has made Treaties with all European Powers, forbidding the introduction of opium into its country, and it has taken good care to prevent the entrance into Japan of this poisonous drug. I believe up to recent years it made the sale of opium a capital offence, so conscious were these Asiatics of the deleterious nature of the drug. We ask that the Government of China shall be allowed to exercise the same care of its people as that of Japan does. It is monstrous to say that what is poison to the Japanese is good for the Chinese. Most of us read in the newspapers, a short time ago, a most eloquent speech delivered by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), in which the right hon. Gentleman depicted the horrors of war. There passed before the right hon. Gentleman's mind a vision, in which he saw millions of broken-hearted widows and children, whose husbands and fathers had been slaughtered in war, and he moved his audience deeply by the picture of the sorrow and misery which he drew. I thought that, when I read that speech, we might conjure up a similar vision of the misery caused by the opium trade—of the 160,000 suicides said to be caused by it annually—of the multitudes of blighted homes for which it is responsible. If these things are true, surely the time has come when this terrible vice should be grappled with, and serious steps taken to deliver us from complicity in this iniquitous trade. It may be said it is too late. I do not believe it is. It is better to repent at the eleventh hour, than not all; and I would ask the House, even at this late stage of the opium question, to turn its steps in the right direction, to make at least a beginning, and thus afford some hope that this dreadful evil will at some future time be wiped away, to give some encouragement to the excellent and religious people out-of-doors who are continually agitating this question. Let the House give some encouragement, even if it does not go so far as we could wish. Let us feel that the Government have an earnest desire to put our policy towards China on a more Christian and more honourable footing than that on which it now stands. I hope that before long something will be done which will tend to wipe away the greatest stain which now exists upon the escutcheon of this country. I beg to second the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that in all negotiations which take place between the Governments of Her Majesty and China, having reference to the Duties levied on Opium under the Treaty of Tientsin, the Government of Her Majesty will be pleased to intimate to the Government of China that in any revision of that Treaty, or in any other negotiations on the subject of Opium, the Government of China will he met as that of an independent State, having the full right to arrange its own Import Duties."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he did not rise to make a speech upon what might be called the general question; but rather to indicate what was the present position of the negotiations which were known to be proceed- ing in connection with the opium question, so far as the Foreign Office was concerned. The Seconder of the Motion said he hoped the Government were conscious of the importance of a good understanding with China. Let him assure the hon. Member that the Government were fully aware of the great and transcendant importance of a good understanding with that country. Some years ago it was an open question whether the Empire of China, hard pressed by foreign wars, and harder pressed by internal rebellion, would not fall to pieces, or be at least very much curtailed as to the limits which were under the control of the Central Government. But that day was over. The Chinese Empire in the last few years had shown an extraordinary recuperative power. It had put down the rebellion, had vindicated its ancient limits, and occupied a position in Asia almost equal to that of the most palmy days of its history. His hon. Friend might be sure that the Government thoroughly understood the importance of a good understanding with such a Power. At the same time, he did not urge the desirability of an alliance with China for the reasons adduced by his hon. Friend. He preferred not to contemplate the possibility of such a struggle as that forshadowed by the hon. Member, but to court the alliance of China for commercial reasons only. Passing from that, he desired to indicate to the House the present position of the opium question. Speaking upon the subject two years ago, the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) stated that the negotiations which had taken place within the last three years had been negotiations in which the opium question had been dealt with from the Chinese side, and so far as any change had been made or contemplated, it had been a change proposed by the Chinese to suit their ideas, and it was, therefore, not to be supposed that any step had been taken to increase the opium trade in China; on the contrary, the steps proposed and considered would, if carried into effect, be more likely to decrease it. Now, the language of the President of the Local Government Board was language which he could make use of on this occasion; and it would be desirable to explain to the House more fully that at this moment, so far as any proposal had been made, it was not a proposal by the English Government with the view of forcing the opium trade on the Chinese, but rather a proposal by the Chinese themselves. The Treaty of Tien-Tsin was negotiated in 1858, and immediately afterwards certain Articles were drawn up respecting the rules of the trade, bearing date 8th November, 1858. Among these was an Article which put opium under certain special treatment out of deference to the wishes of the Chinese Government. Under that Article the same facilities were not claimed in regard to opium as to other goods; nor had Her Majesty's Government ever departed from the position then assumed that the internal arrangements of the Chinese Government with regard to opium were matters with which they and nothing to do. By the phrase "internal arrangements" he did not mean Customs duties, but those duties which were levied in the interior of China. In the Chefoo Convention, which it should be borne in mind arose out of special circumstances, there was a clause enacting that merchants must bring their opium to the notice of the Customs officers at the ports, and that the importer must pay the Customs duty and the purchaser the transit duty. But the Chefoo Convention had hardly been drawn up when differences of opinion became manifest about its meaning, and the amount of the likin or transit duty which might be levied under it, and it became apparent that the discontent which it was intended to allay was intensified by it. It had been asked—"Why not ratify the Chefoo Convention at once?" If they were to ratify that Convention as it stood, not much would be done. Though it might be desirable to negotiate on the basis of the Chefoo Convention, it would be dangerous to ratify it as it stood, because no two people could possibly agree as to the meaning of the terms. That view having forced itself upon Her Majesty's Government, negotiations as initiated by his Predecessor had been slowly going on. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered derisively at the word "slowly." With regard to those cheers he could only say what his hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board said in reply to similar cheers three years ago—that it must be recollected that the Government with which they had to deal, though of remarkable skill and ability, never moved very fast. However, the negotiations with regard to the likin or transit duty were at the present moment reaching a stage which the Government hoped would be fruitful. His hon. Friends had argued on this, as upon other occasions, that the Chinese Government felt itself in the position of a person acting under pressure. He was unable to see anything of the kind in any proposition emanating from the Chinese Government. Sympathizing, as he believed everybody in the House must, with the abstract view that the consumption of opium had, to say the least, never done anybody any good, it was quite another thing to assume, as his hon. Friends had rashly assumed, that there was evidence that the people and Government of China were in any sense united in demanding from the English Government power to prohibit the trade or the production of opium in their own country. He was perfectly willing to grant that there was a part)' in China in favour of the suppression of the opium traffic, just as in England there was a party in favour of the suppression of the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks, and that that party comprised within its ranks many men of great power and eminence. But he was unable to see that there was any proof whatever that that party had the ear of the country; or that if the English Government consented to the complete and immediate abrogation of the old Treaties, which, however, was not aimed at by this Motion, there would be any immediate or near prospect of the Chinese Government putting an end to the traffic. All that would be done, therefore, by the Government would be most seriously to embarrass the finances of India without obtaining those objects which were placed before them as inducements for making this great and weighty change. The Government were fully sensible of the importance of the question; and, considering the great interest shown, not only in that House, but out of it, in the matter, when the time approached when the decennial revision of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin would naturally take place, the whole opium question would be certain to be forced upon the attention of the Government, But he was bound to say that at this moment to adopt a Resolution of this kind would not attain the objects which were aimed at by the Mover of the Motion, and, at the same time, it would seriously hamper the Foreign Office in regard to the limited question of the transit duty. Under these circumstances, the Government were unwilling to meet his hon. Friend's Motion with a direct negative, because that would look as if they had no sympathy with the object he had at heart, which was a great and philanthropic object; but feeling, as they did, that the present negotiations would probably only suffer, and that even the general object of his hon. Friend would not itself be in any way promoted in a manner which would be useful or conducive to the Public Service, or to India, the Government would meet the Motion by moving, as he now did, the Previous Question.

Previous Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Lord Edmond Fitsmaurice.)

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY

congratulated his hon. Friends opposite on the fact that the conscience of the country had been very much awakened, and that there was a sincere desire to deal fairly with the Chinese in this matter. The country greatly resented the fact that the execution of the Convention had been so long delayed, and that, as was said by Sir Thomas Wade, while we had entered upon the enjoyment of advantages conferred upon us, we had evaded the fulfilment of corresponding obligations. The whole matter ought to be fairly looked in the face. The growth of native opium in China was, however, very much larger than what we imported, and the drug was very greatly consumed. The Secretary of State for War, when he spoke on the question, hardly agreed with what had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because he showed that opium was largely used, especially by the working classes in China, without doing harm. He believed the point between the Chinese and the British Government was simply as to the amount of duty that should be imposed. It had been proposed, on the part of the Chinese, to raise the duty to something like 130 or 150 taels, which was a very high duty. Sir Thomas Wade had suggested that 60 or 70 taels might fairly be conceded by this country as the import duty to be paid in to the Central Government through the Customs, because it had properly been said that there should not be such a high duty as would lead to smuggling, and probably to collisions between our authorities and those of the Chinese. That was a point that might fairly be conceded. The demand of the Chinese was for fiscal liberty. He held that we had not the right to interfere with the Chinese in a matter which was essentially connected with their own internal fiscal arrangements. We should resent any dictation on the part of France as to the amount of duty we might choose to impose upon her brandies; and much as we disliked the oppressive tariff of the United States, we should never go to war to force them to admit our goods at a low rate of duty. He was glad that we were arriving at a clearer perception with regard to this question than had formerly prevailed.

MR. MACFARLANE

remarked, that the violent anti-opium tone had disappeared from this annual Resolution, since it had now been reduced to a desire that the Government should inform the Chinese that they were an independent State. He did not defend old proceedings of this country with regard to forcing opium upon China; but he maintained that opium was the most innocent stimulant that man could take. He had never heard of any injuries resulting to other people from the men who took opium. They never heard of the atrocities which were committed in this country to poor women and children through the intoxication caused by the use of our stimulants. It was, moreover, a valuable medicine. In British India the quantities consumed were in exact proportion to the prevalence of fever. In the dry districts, where fever did not exist, opium was scarcely used; whereas in the damp malarious districts it was used to a large extent, and beneficially. He was glad to observe that the discussion had taken a much more commercial than a moral tone. He denied that opium was in itself essentially an immoral drug, and challenged those who had raised this question to take a similar course with regard to spirits, and see what sort of a division they would have in that House.

MR. R. N. FOWLER,

although preferring the Motion on this subject brought forward about the year 1870, by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and which he had the honour to second, said, he had on all occasions entered his protest against the system pursued with regard to Indian opium; and believing that the present Motion was a protest against that system, he would go into the Lobby in support of it. At the same time, he regretted that the Motion took attention off the Indian question, and directed it to the secondary point of the negotiations carried on by the Foreign Office with the Chinese Government. Since last Session they had had a very important document presented, which was the answer of the Indian Government to the very able indictment made against the opium traffic by the hon. Member for South Durham. The only new point raised by the Government of India on that occasion was that a former Governor (Sir William Muir) of the North-Western Provinces advocated the imposition of a transit duty in place of the existing monopoly; and it was said that on the borders of Malwa it would be comparatively easy to enforce that duty, as the country was mountainous, and the passes could easily be guarded, but that Bengal being an open country the prohibition could not be enforced. But so long as the Indian Revenue was so largely dependent upon opium, he had no fault to find with our negotiations with China. A parallel had been drawn between opium and alcohol. But no such comparison was valid. Most persons considered the use of alcohol to some extent innocent, and healthful; but who ever heard of a doctor prescribing opium? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: Laudanum.] But even in the case of alcohol their laws were keenly repressive, and it was not allowed to be sold without special licence. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to abolish all duties on wines and spirits, and to make it allowable for anyone who chose to open a house for their sale, a very large increase of drunkenness would ensue. He regretted that Lord Shaftesbury had not been successful in the efforts which he made in that House 40 years ago to suppress the traffic when it only produced £2,000,000 a-year, and its suppression would have been comparatively easy. He was quite aware of the difficulties which attached to the opium question; but thought that if the people of England felt they were promoting a nefarious trade, they should authorize the House to assist the Revenue of India, and by that means put an end to what be could but regard as one of the great blots in the escutcheon of the people of England.

DR. FARQUHARSON

protested against the view that they owed any reparation or confession of wrongdoing to China with respect to the opium question. In 1858, according to the authority of Mr. Laurance Oliphant, the Chinese were given the option of altogether excluding opium. In China, too, much larger districts were devoted to the production of the drug than in India. It ought not to be forgotten that if the monopoly were taken away India would be practically bankrupt. Much misconception, too, prevailed as to the injurious effects of opium. There was a great difference as between smoking and eating opium. Some of the most vigorous races of India—the Sikhs and the Eajpoots—habitually smoked opium. Moderate opium smoking was found to be a wholesome tonic, and it was not narcotic until it was taken in excess. It was also known that it was a valuable prophylactic against fever, and for that purpose it was a good deal used in the Fen districts of England. But opium eating produced disorders of the stomach which were not produced by smoking. Yet distinguished men in this country had been in the habit of eating opium; and it was well known that the illustrious Wilberforce rarely made a great speech in that House without having previously taken an opium pill They had got the evidence of many very eminent authorities, to the effect that opium smoking was not dangerous, but rather beneficial. The Chinese coolies were almost invariably opium smokers; and of the Chinese Army, who were a hardy set of men, 90 per cent were opium smokers. The general condition of China showed it to be quite absurd that we should take the extreme view of the destructive nature of this drug. Many of the people of China who smoked opium were the most learned people in the world. He believed that the number who did smoke opium had been greatly exaggerated. The evidence from the other side seemed to him to be suspiciously vague. He asked whether anyone could produce a single case of real actual damage done by opium smoking per se? To his mind there was no evidence whatever that deaths ever did take place from the actual effects of opium smoking per se, and it was a point on which evidence was urgently needed. He believed that it was one of the least harmful of stimulants. It was certainly far less harmful than alcohol, from which they in this country derived an annual revenue of £20,000,000. Opium did not produce crime, nor did it produce hereditary disease, both of which were results of alcohol; and he believed it did China very little harm.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he could not agree with the view taken by the hon. Member who had just spoken, he did not think it was proved that opium was worse than whiskey; but he did not think, on the other hand, it was proved that whiskey was worse than opium. No doubt there were limits within which whiskey might do no great harm. He confessed that he himself drank it sometimes; but it was taken to excess and did much harm. The Indian Government did not encourage the growth of opium; but, on the contrary, they restricted it. In fact, they treated opium exactly as we treated whiskey. The view be bad always taken was that we who were connected with India should wash our hands of the sin of this matter, if sin there was. So far as the question went of not forcing opium upon the Chinese, he agreed with the Mover of the Resolution; but the question was a very much more difficult one, and could not be treated in that simple way. The House would be glad to hear the Under Secretary of State for India; but the noble Lord who had spoken for the Government had not told them where the negotiations stood now, and what was going to be done. The question was whether they were bound, not only to refrain from forcing opium on the Chinese, but whether they were also bound to take upon themselves to prevent the smuggling of opium into China, if the Chinese could not effect that object themselves? The Chinese seemed to seek to raise as much revenue out of opium as they could. If the Chinese raised their import duty the Indian Revenue must suffer; and if they could do so of their own power, we could not do anything to prevent it. It seemed to him that, practically, when the Treaties were made, the agreement between this country and China amounted to this—that the Chinese agreed to limit the revenue on opium upon the consideration that we should collect the duty for them. But if they raised the revenue, it seemed to him a very debateable question whether we were bound to collect that duty. He rather feared we were trying to buy the acquiescence of the Chinese Government in this trade, by giving them an additional share in the revenue derived from it. The hon. Member for Liverpool had a definite plan. It seemed to him that not only did the hon. Member want to retain the monopoly of this opium traffic in India, but also in China. Pending the result of the negotiations, however, he should vote with the Government for the Previous Question, rather than for the Motion, though, as a matter of principle, he agreed with it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 126: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 48.)