More opium is consumed in China than in all the rest of the world, and nearly the whole of the opium imported into China is shipped from Calcutta and Bombay. The East and the West, England, India, and China, act and re-act upon each other through the medium of poppy-juice. Simple mention of the relations which these three great countries bear to the drug is enough to show that a very grave question is involved in the trade. England is the grower, manufacturer, and seller; India furnishes the farm and the factory; China is buyer and consumer. The question which obviously arises is this, Is it morally justifiable and politically expedient for the English nation to continue the production and sale of a drug so deleterious to its consumers? Before, however, we enter upon a consideration of this question, we must explain how it has come to pass that the British nation has got into this unseemly position. Otherwise, the fact that the British Government is actually implicated in such a trade may well appear incredible. If, for instance, any minister could be shameless enough to suggest that England should embark on a vast scale into the business of distillers, and with national funds, by servants of Government, under inspection and control of Parliament,produce and export annually ten or twenty millions’ worth of gin and whisky to intoxicate the populous tribes of Central Africa, he would be greeted by a general outcry of indignation. Yet the very thing which we scout as an imagination, we consent to as a reality.We are maintaining our Indian Empire by our profits as wholesale dealers in an article which, to say the best of it, is as bad as gin.
More opium is consumed in China than in all the rest of the world, and nearly the whole of the opium imported into China is shipped from Calcutta and Bombay. The East and the West, England, India, and China, act and re-act upon each other through the medium of poppy-juice. Simple mention of the relations which these three great countries bear to the drug is enough to show that a very grave question is involved in the trade. England is the grower, manufacturer, and seller; India furnishes the farm and the factory; China is buyer and consumer. The question which obviously arises is this, Is it morally justifiable and politically expedient for the English nation to continue the production and sale of a drug so deleterious to its consumers? Before, however, we enter upon a consideration of this question, we must explain how it has come to pass that the British nation has got into this unseemly position. Otherwise, the fact that the British Government is actually implicated in such a trade may well appear incredible. If, for instance, any minister could be shameless enough to suggest that England should embark on a vast scale into the business of distillers, and with national funds, by servants of Government, under inspection and control of Parliament,produce and export annually ten or twenty millions’ worth of gin and whisky to intoxicate the populous tribes of Central Africa, he would be greeted by a general outcry of indignation. Yet the very thing which we scout as an imagination, we consent to as a reality.We are maintaining our Indian Empire by our profits as wholesale dealers in an article which, to say the best of it, is as bad as gin.
Now, is that a fair parallel? Is it honest or just to place the civilized, wise, and educated Chinese in the same category with the barbarous natives of Central Africa? This, I assure you is but a fair specimen of the misleading character of Mr. Turner’s book and an example of the teaching by which people are made the dupes of the Anti-Opium Society. This is the language which Mr. Storrs Turner applies to his country and countrymen to gratify himself and his fanatical followers. China, though a heathen, is a civilized nation. The civilization of the Chinese does not date from yesterday. When England was inhabited by painted savages, China was a civilized and flourishing Empire. When ancient Greece was struggling into existence, China was a settled nation, with a religion and with laws and literaturedating back to a period lost in the mist of ages. When Alexander, miscalled the Great, fancied he had conquered the world, and sighed that there was no other country to subdue, the mighty Empire of China, with its teeming millions, and a civilization far superior, taken altogether, to any that he had yet known, was a flourishing nation, and happily far away from the assaults of him and his conquering force. Five thousand years ago, as the Rev. Dr. Legge, the Professor of Chinese at Oxford, tells us, the Chinese believed in one God and had, in fact, a theology and a system of ethics known now as Confucianism, certainly superior to that of Greece or Rome. They had then and still have a written language of their own, in which the works of their sages and philosophers are recorded. There are books extant in that language for more than three thousand years ago. In a learned and very interesting book, written by Dr. Legge, entitled “The Religions of China,” it is shown that the Chinese, not only of to-day, but of five thousand years ago, were a great nation. Was it then, I again ask, honest or fair of the Rev. Storrs Turner, who is himself no mean Chinese scholar, to mislead his readers by making use of so forced and inapplicable a comparison? Can there, in fact, be any analogy whatever between the Indo-China opium trade, even supposing that the smoking of the drug were as deleterious to the system as is alleged, and sending whisky from England to the savages of Central Africa? No man could have known better than Mr. Turner that his simile was false and misleading, for he has lived in China for many years. An ordinary person reading that gentleman’s book would swallow this simile as one precisely in point, and end by feeling horrified at the iniquities we were perpetrating in China, which is, no doubt, the exact result that he looked for. I recently met a lady with whom I had been in correspondence for some time on professional business. In the course of conversation we happened to speak about opium, and the moment the subject was mentioned she turned up her eyes in horror and declared that she was ashamed of her country for the wrong it was inflicting upon the natives of China. Mr. Turner’s wonderful parallel between the civilized Chinese and the African savages had plainly produced its desired effect upon her. I very soon, however, undeceived her on the point, as I have since had the pleasure of doing with manyothers labouring under the like delusions. I am sorry to say that it is with the gentler sex that our Anti-Opium fanatics make their most profitable converts. I honour those ladies for their fond delusion, which shows that their hearts are better than their heads; that their good intentions run in advance of them, and make them ready victims. Well, well, I trust their charity will soon be diverted into worthier channels. Unfortunately, the minds of many in England have become imbued with the same erroneous belief, which is entirely owing to the mischievous teaching of the Anti-Opium Society, and to the powerful machinery that this Society has available for disseminating its doctrines. I am sorry, indeed, to have to allude thus to Mr. Storrs Turner and his book, for I respect him as a clergyman, a scholar, and a gentleman; but I cannot avoid doing so, for certain it is that if you mean to refute Mahomedanism you cannot spare Mahomed or the Alkoran.
I have already told you something as to the character of the Chinese generally. I will now mention from authority some more specific characteristics of these people, because it is really important that you should thoroughly understand what manner of men these Chinese are, for that is a matter going to the root of the whole question. If I show you, as I believe I shall be able to do most conclusively, that the Chinese are as intelligent and as well able to take care of themselves as we are, with far more craft and subtlety than we possess, you will, I think, be slow to believe that they are silly enough to allow us to poison them with opium, as it is alleged we are doing. A stranger mixture of good and evil could hardly be met with than you will find in the Chinese—crafty, over-reaching, mendacious beyond belief, double-dealing, distrustful, and suspicious even of their own relations and personal friends; self-opinionated, vain, conceited, arrogant, hypocritical, and deceitful. That is the character that I give you of them; but it is the worst side of their nature, for they have many redeeming qualities. I will now place before you their character from another and a more competent authority. The Venble. John Gray, D.D., was, until recently, for about twenty-five years, Archdeacon of Hong Kong, but during the greater part, if not the whole of that time, he was the respected and faithful incumbent of the English Church at Canton, where he resided. NowDr. Gray, who is still in the prime of life, is a learned and able man; a keen observer of human nature; a sound, solid, sensible Churchman, and so highly esteemed for his excellent qualities, that I do not think any Englishman who ever lived in China has left a more honoured name behind him than he has. He mixed a great deal amongst the Chinese as well as amongst his own countrymen. He also travelled much in China, and there really could not be found a more competent authority as to the character of the Chinese people; and indeed as to all matters connected with China. In 1878 he published a valuable and trustworthy book.[3]It is not the production of a person who has merely made a flying visit to China; but it is the work of an old and sagacious English resident in that country, a profound thinker and observer, of a man who has studied deeply and made himself thoroughly acquainted with his subject. He says, at p. 15, vol. i.:—
Of the moral character of the people, who have multiplied until they are “as the sands upon the sea-shore,” it is very difficult to speak justly. The moral character of the Chinese is a book written in strange letters, which are more complex and difficult for one of another race, religion, and language to decipher than their own singularly compounded word-symbols. In the same individual virtues and vices apparently incompatible are placed side by side—meekness, gentleness, docility, industry, contentment, cheerfulness, obedience to superiors, dutifulness to parents, and reverence to the aged, are, in one and the same person, the companions of insincerity, lying, flattery, treachery, cruelty, jealousy, ingratitude, and distrust of others.
Of the moral character of the people, who have multiplied until they are “as the sands upon the sea-shore,” it is very difficult to speak justly. The moral character of the Chinese is a book written in strange letters, which are more complex and difficult for one of another race, religion, and language to decipher than their own singularly compounded word-symbols. In the same individual virtues and vices apparently incompatible are placed side by side—meekness, gentleness, docility, industry, contentment, cheerfulness, obedience to superiors, dutifulness to parents, and reverence to the aged, are, in one and the same person, the companions of insincerity, lying, flattery, treachery, cruelty, jealousy, ingratitude, and distrust of others.
This is the character which an English clergyman and scholar gives of the Chinese. Dr. Gray was not a missionary, and it is to the missionary clergymen generally that the extraordinary and delusive statements respecting opium which I am combating are due; the reason for which I shall by and by give you. I hold these missionary gentlemen in the very highest respect. In their missionary labours they have my complete sympathy, and no person can possibly value them as such more than I do, nor be more ready than I am to bear testimony to the ability, piety, industry, and energy which they have always displayed. But they are not infallible, and when they forsake or neglect their sacredfunctions, and enter the arena of politics; when they cast aside the surplice and enter the lists as political gladiators, they are liable to meet with opponents who will accept their challenge and controvert their views, and have no right to complain if they now and then receive hard knocks in the encounter. They are enthusiastic in their sacred calling; but that fact, whilst it does them honour, shows that their extraordinary assertions as to the opium trade should be received with caution, if not distrust. They are the men who are responsible for the unfounded views which have got abroad on this question.
Now, is it not significant that Dr. Gray, whom the people of Canton esteemed and respected more than any European who has lived amongst them, except, perhaps, the late Sir Brooke Robertson (who was more Chinese than the Chinese themselves), should have said nothing against opium in that valuable and exhaustive work of his? Is it not passing strange that this shrewd observer of men and manners, this intelligent English clergyman, who has passed all these years at Canton, which, next to Hong Kong is the great emporium of opium in the south of China, should be silent upon the alleged iniquities that his countrymen are committing in that country? Dr. Gray is a patriotic English gentleman. Can you suppose for a moment, that if we were demoralizing and ruining the people of the great city of Canton, and above all, that we were impeding the progress of the Gospel in China, that his voice would not be heard thundering against the iniquity? Dr. Gray is an earnest and eloquent preacher as well as an accomplished writer; yet his voice has been silent on this alleged national crime. Is it to be thought that, if there were any truth in the outcry spread abroad by Mr. Storrs Turner and the Anti-Opium Society, he would have omitted to have enlarged upon the wickedness of the opium trade when writing this book upon China and the manners and customs of the Chinese? Is it not remarkable that he has said not a word about that wickedness, and that all these alleged evils arising from the trade are only conspicuous in his book by their absence? And here I would ask, is not the silence of Dr. Gray on this important opium question, under all the circumstances, just as eloquent a protest against the anti-opium agitation, as if he had given a whole chapter in his book denouncing the imposture?
But to return to the character of the Chinese. Dr. Wells Williams, a missionary clergyman of the highest character, who, being a missionary, I need hardly say, does not hold the views that I do, has written another admirable book upon China.[4]In it he has described the Chinese character very fully. He first tells us, at page 2 of the second volume, what one, Tien Kishi—a popular essayist—thinks of foreigners.
“I felicitate myself,” he says, “that I was born in China, and constantly think how different it would have been with me if I had been born beyond the seas in some remote part of the earth, where the people, far removed from the converting maxims of the ancient kings and ignorant of the domestic relations, are clothed with the leaves of plants, eat wood, dwell in the wilderness, and live in the holes of the earth. Though born in the world in such a condition, I should not have been different from the beasts of the field. But now, happily, I have been born in the ‘Middle Kingdom.’ I have a house to live in, have food and drink and elegant furniture, have clothing and caps and infinite blessings—truly the highest felicity is mine.”
“I felicitate myself,” he says, “that I was born in China, and constantly think how different it would have been with me if I had been born beyond the seas in some remote part of the earth, where the people, far removed from the converting maxims of the ancient kings and ignorant of the domestic relations, are clothed with the leaves of plants, eat wood, dwell in the wilderness, and live in the holes of the earth. Though born in the world in such a condition, I should not have been different from the beasts of the field. But now, happily, I have been born in the ‘Middle Kingdom.’ I have a house to live in, have food and drink and elegant furniture, have clothing and caps and infinite blessings—truly the highest felicity is mine.”
That is still the opinion of every Chinaman respecting foreigners, save those at Hong Kong, Shanghai, and the other treaty ports of China who, having intermixed with foreigners, have found that their preconceived notions respecting them were untrue, but they are but a handful, a drop in the ocean; yet these are the people who, it is said, at our bidding and instigation, are ruining their prospects and their health by smoking our opium. Dr. Williams further says of them, at page 96 of the same volume:—
More ineradicable than the sins of the flesh is the falsity of the Chinese and its attendant sin of base ingratitude. Their disregard of truth has, perhaps, done more to lower their character in the eyes of Christendom than any other fault. They feel no shame at being detected in a lie, though they have not gone quite so far as to know when they do lie, nor do they fear any punishment from the gods for it. Every resident among them and all travellers declaim against their mendacity.
More ineradicable than the sins of the flesh is the falsity of the Chinese and its attendant sin of base ingratitude. Their disregard of truth has, perhaps, done more to lower their character in the eyes of Christendom than any other fault. They feel no shame at being detected in a lie, though they have not gone quite so far as to know when they do lie, nor do they fear any punishment from the gods for it. Every resident among them and all travellers declaim against their mendacity.
I shall give you by-and-by instances—actual facts known to myself, to prove that every word Dr. Williams has said is true; and further, that the Chinese will indulge in falsehood, not merely for gain or to carry out some corrupt purpose, but for the mere pleasure of romancing, or togratify and oblige a friend. Dr. Williams then goes on to moralize, and admits that the Chinese have a great many virtues as well as a great many very foul vices. Unquestionably they have a great many virtues, aye, and virtues of sterling character, and amongst these are commercial honour and probity. For commercial instincts and habits I place them next to the British. In their affection for their parents, their attachment to the family homestead, their veneration for the aged and the virtuous, they surpass every other nation. These are not the class of men to allow themselves to be befooled with opium. Another virtue they possess, and it is one very pertinent to the subject of this lecture, is abstemiousness; they are positively the most frugal, self-denying, and abstemious people on the face of the earth.
Not only are the Chinese abstemious in their use of opium, but also as regards alcoholic liquors. It is not, I think, generally known that there is a species of spirit manufactured, and extensively used throughout China, commonly called by foreigners “sam-shu.” It is very cheap, and there is no duty upon it in Hong Kong, nor is there any, I believe, in their own country. I suppose a pint bottle of it can be bought for a penny. It is a sort of whisky distilled from rice. The Chinese use it habitually, especially after meals, and I do not think there is a single foreign resident of Hong Kong, or any of the Treaty Ports, who does not know this fact. The practice in China is, for the servants of Europeans to go early to market each morning and bring home the provisions and other household necessaries required for the day’s use. I have seen, in the case of my own servants, the bottle of sam-shu brought home morning after morning as regularly as their ordinary daily food. Yet I never saw one of my servants drunk or under the influence of liquor. What is more than that, although sam-shu is so very cheap and plentiful, and is used throughout the whole of Hong Kong, I never saw a Chinaman drunk, nor ever knew of one being brought up before the magistrate for intemperance. I cannot say the same thing of my own countrymen. Does not that form the strongest possible evidence that the Chinese are an extremely steady and abstemious race? Yet these are the people whom Mr. Storrs Turner would put in the same category as the savages of Africa? Well, then, is it likely that a people so abstemious in respect of spirit drinkingwould indulge to excess in opium, especially if the drug has the intoxicating and destructive qualities ascribed to it by the missionaries?
The Chinese, I have also said, are a very frugal people. Six dollars, or about twenty-four shillings of our money, per month are considered splendid wages by a coolie. On two dollars a month he can live comfortably. He sends, perhaps, every month, one or two dollars to his parents or wife in his native village; for generally a Chinaman, be he never so poor, has a wife, it being there a duty, if not an article of religion, for the males, to marry young. The remainder they hoard for a rainy day. Now, I say again, if the Chinese are such abstemious and frugal people, and that they are so is unquestionable, does not the same rule apply to opium as to spirits? The truth of the matter is, that it is a very inconsiderable number of those who smoke opium who indulge in it to any considerable extent—probably about one in five thousand. When a Chinaman’s day’s work is over, and he feels fatigued or weary, he will, if he can afford it, take a whiff or two of the opium pipe, seldom more. If a friend drops in he will offer him a pipe, just as we would invite a friend to have a glass of sherry or a cigar. This use of the opium pipe does good rather than harm. Those who indulge in it take their meals and sleep none the worse. The use of the pipe, indeed, wiles them from spirit drinking and other vicious habits. My own belief is that opium smoking exercises a beneficial influence upon those who habitually practise it, far more so than the indulgence in tobacco, which is simply a poisonous weed, having no curative properties whatever. I have seen here in England many a youth tremble and become completely unhinged by excessive smoking, so terrible is the effect of the unwholesome narcotic on the nervous system when it is indulged in to excess; indeed I have heard it often said that excessive indulgence in tobacco frequently produces softening of the brain: such a result has never proceeded from opium smoking.
I have stated in my programme of these lectures that the views put forward by the “Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade” were based upon fallacies and false assumptions, which account for the many converts the advocates of that Society have made. I have now totell you what these fallacies and false assumptions are. In fact, these explain pretty clearly how it has come to pass that so many otherwise sensible, good, and benevolent people have been led astray on the opium question.
The first of these fallacies is,that the poppy is not indigenous to China, but has been recently introduced there, presumably by British agency. The truth being that the poppy is indigenous to China, as it admittedly is to Asia generally, and has been used in China for various purposes for thousands of years.
The second is,that opium smoking in China is now and always has been confined to a small per-centage of the population, but which, owing to the introduction into the country of Indian opium, is rapidly increasing. The fact being that the custom is, and for many centuries has been, general among the male adults throughout China, its use being limited only by the ability to procure the drug.
The third is,that opium smoking is injurious to the system, more so than spirit drinking. The truth being that the former is not only harmless but beneficial to the system, unless when practised to an inordinate extent, which is wholly exceptional; whilst spirit drinking ruins the health, degrades the character, incites its victims to acts of violence, and destroys the prospects of everyone who indulges to excess in the practice.
The fourth is,that the supply of opium regulates the demand, and not the demand the supply. When I come to consider this in detail, I think I shall rather surprise you by the statements in support of this extraordinary theory put forward by Mr. Storrs Turner in this wonderful book of his. The use of so utterly untenable a proposition shows to what extremes fanatical enthusiasts will resort in support of the hobby they are riding to death; how desperate men, when advocating a hopeless cause, will grasp at shadows to support their theories. When such persons wish a certain state of things to be true and existing, they never stop to scrutinize the arguments they use in support of them. If Mr. Storrs Turner had not opium on the brain to an alarming extent, and was writing by the light of reason and common sense, he would no more dream of putting forward such a theory than he would entertain the faintest hope of finding any person silly enough to believe in the doctrine.
The fifth fallacy is,that opium smoking and opium eating are equally hurtful. The fact being that there is the widest difference in the world between the two practices, as I shall hereafter conclusively prove to you. Upon this point, I may tell you, that Mr. Storrs Turner, in the appendix to his book, gives numerous extracts from evidence taken on various occasions as to opiumeating, which has no relevancy to opium smoking; not that I am even disposed to admit that even opium eating in moderation is a baneful practice, the medical evidence on the subject being at present very conflicting. And here I may appropriately say, that although an overdose of opium may cause death, the meresmokingof the drug in any quantity will not do so. No case of poisoning by opium smoking has ever been reported or heard of; such a thing, in fact, is a physical impossibility. I daresay this may surprise some people, but it is, nevertheless, an irrefragable fact.
The sixth is,that all, or nearly all, who smoke opium are either inordinate smokers or are necessarily in the way of becoming so, and that once the custom has been commenced it cannot be dropped; but the victim to it is compelled to go on smoking the drug to his ultimate destruction. That, I shall show you, upon the best evidence, is altogether untrue, thousands of Chinese having been to my knowledge habitual and occasional opium smokers, who showed no ill effects whatever from the practice, which, by the way, is far more easily discontinued than the use of alcoholic liquors.
The seventh is,that the Chinese Government is, or ever was, anxious to put a stop to the custom, or even to check the use, of opium amongst the people of China. This is one of the most ridiculous and unfounded notions that ever entered the mind of man. There is a saying that “none are so blind as those who will not see,” and here, I shall show you, is the strongest proof of the adage.
The eighth is,that the British merchants in China are making large fortunes by opium. The fact being that the Indo-China trade is profitable to a very few merchants only, whilst the British merchants as a body have no interest in the trade whatever. This is a pet fallacy of Mr. Storrs Turner, and he has shown throughout his book, and notably in his article in the “Nineteenth Century,” a determination to make the most of it. He has evidently persuaded himselfthat some large English firms have made enormous fortunes by the drug, and he seems to have made up his mind never to forgive the enormity.
The ninth is,that the discontinuance of the supply of opium from British India would stop, or effectually check, the practice of opium smoking in China. The fact being that the suppression of the present Indo-China opium trade, if indeed it were possible to suppress it, would have precisely the contrary effect. I shall prove to you clearly, that if the Indo-China opium trade, as at present carried on, were put an end to, such an impetus would be given to the importation of opium into China as would enormously add to the consumption of the drug, and that then British and other merchants who have now no dealings in opium, would in such case become largely engaged in the trade; whilst opium smuggling, the cause of so much strife and unpleasantness in past times, would again become general upon the coast of China.
The tenth is,that the opposition of Chinese officials to the introduction of opium into China arose from moral causes. The fact being, as every sane man acquainted with China knows, that the true reason for such opposition was a desire to protect and promote the culture of native opium to keep out the foreign drug, and thus prevent the bullion payable for the latter from leaving the country.
Last, but by no means least, is the fallacy and fond delusion,that the introduction of Indian opium into China has arrested and is impeding the progress of Christianity in that country, and that if the trade were discontinued, the Chinese, or large numbers of them, would embrace the Gospel. The fact being, that opium smoking has had nothing whatever to do with the propagation of Christianity in China, any more than rice or Manchester goods, as I confidently undertake to show you when I come to deal more fully with this outrageous fallacy. I will only now observe that it is a remarkable fact, that while China is covered with a network of Roman Catholic missionaries, some of whom I had the pleasure of knowing quite intimately, I have never heard of a similar complaint having been made by any of them, but, on the contrary, have always known them to speak triumphantly of their great success in their missionary labours; but then it must be remembered that these Roman Catholic missionaries, greatly to their credit, throw their whole soul intotheir work, and devote their whole time to their missionary labours, never mixing in politics or interfering with matters of State. These are the figments which have got hold of the Anti-Opium mind, from which has sprung the monstrosity put forward by the Anti-Opium Society. I shall, in future lectures, return to these fallacies, and dispose of each in turn.
I will close this lecture by giving you the testimony of a very high and entirely impartial authority as to the innocuous effects of opium, which strongly confirms all that I have already stated. The late John Crawfurd, F.R.S., was asavantof high reputation in England, throughout the East, and, I believe, in Europe. He was the contemporary and intimate friend of the late Sir Benjamin Brodie, the eminent surgeon. Mr. Crawfurd had, previous to 1856, been Governor of the three settlements of Singapore, Penang, and Malacca. He resided for a great number of years in the far East, studying there the country and people; he visited Siam, Java, Borneo, and the Phillipine Islands, making himself thoroughly acquainted with those places, the Malay peninsula, and various other countries in the Indian Ocean and China Sea. In 1820 he published, in London, “A History of the Indian Archipelago” (then comparatively but seldom visited by, and less known to, Europeans), a work, I understand, of considerable merit. Thirty-six years afterwards, that is, in the year 1856, having during the interval spent seven years in travelling through India and otherwise making himself perfectly acquainted with his subject, he published “A Dictionary of the Indian Islands and Adjacent Countries.” The book was brought out in London by the well-known firm of Bradbury and Evans, and I have it now before me. It was lent to me by a friend since the first edition of these lectures was published. It is an interesting and valuable volume, affording abundant evidence of the learning, research, vast information and talents, and the studious and energetic character of the writer. The book was published many years before this wonderful confederation “The Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade” sprang into existence, and, indeed, before there was any considerable controversy upon the opium question. The opinions of this eminent man on the subject of opium should, therefore, be viewed as wholly unbiassed, for it is certain that he had no selfishends to gratify. Turning to the word “Opium” at page 313, we find the following:—
Opium is at present largely consumed in the Malayan Islands, in China, in the Indo-Chinese countries, and in a few parts of Hindustan, much in the same way in which wine, ardent spirits, malt liquor, and cider are consumed in Europe. Its deleterious character has been much insisted on, but generally, by partieswho have had no experience of its effects. Like any other narcotic or stimulant, the habitual use of it is amenable to abuse, and as being more seductive than other stimulants, perhaps more so; but this is certainly the utmost that can be safely charged to it. Thousands consume it without any pernicious result, as thousands do wine and spirits, without any evil consequence. I know of no person of long experience and competent judgment who has not come to this common-sense conclusion. Dr. Oxley, a physician and a naturalist of eminence, and who has had a longer experience than any other man of Singapore, where there is the highest rate of consumption of the drug, gives the following opinion:—“The inordinate use, or rather abuse, of the drug most decidedly does bring on early decrepitude, loss of appetite, and a morbid state of all the secretions; but I have seen a man who had used the drug for fifty years in moderation, without any evil effects; and one man I recollect in Malacca who had so used it was upwards of eighty. Several in the habit of smoking it have assured me that, in moderation, it neither impaired the functions nor shortened life; at the same time fully admitting the deleterious effects of too much.” There is not a word of this that would not be equally true of the use and abuse of ardent spirit, wine, and, perhaps, even tobacco. The historian of Sumatra, whose experience and good sense cannot be questioned, came early to the very same conclusion. The superior curative virtues of opium over any other stimulant are undeniable, and the question of its superiority over ardent spirits appears to me to have been for ever set at rest by the high authority of my friend Sir Benjamin Brodie. “The effect of opium, when taken into the stomach,” says this distinguished philosopher, “is not to stimulate but to soothe the nervous system. It may be otherwise in some instances, but these are rare exceptions to the general rule. The opium eater is, in a passive state, satisfied with his own dreamy condition while under the influence of the drug. He is useless but not mischievous. It is quite otherwise with alcoholic liquors.”—“Psychological Inquiries,” p. 248.It may be worth while to show what is really the relative consumption in those countries in which its use is alleged to be most pernicious. In the British Settlement of Singapore, owing to the high rate of wages, and the prevalence of a Chinese population, the consumption is at the rate of about three hundred and thirty grains, or adult doses, a year for each person. In Java, where the Chinese do not compose above one in a hundred of the population, and where wages are comparatively low, it does not exceed forty grains. Even in China itself, where the consumption is supposed to be so large, it is no more than one hundred and forty grains, chieflyowing to the poverty of the people, to whom it is for the most part inaccessible. It must not be forgotten, that some of the deleterious qualities of opium are considerably abated, in all the countries in question, by the manner in which it is prepared for use,which consistsin reducing it to a kind of morphine and inhaling its fumes in this state. Moreover, everywhere consumption is restricted by heavy taxation. The opium of India pays, in the first instance, a tax which amounts to three millions sterling. The same opium in Singapore, with a population of sixty thousand, pays another impost of thirty thousand pounds; and, in Java, with a population of ten millions, one of eight hundred thousand pounds.Not the use, then, but the abuse, of opium is prejudicial to health; but in this respect it does not materially differ from wine, distilled spirits, malt liquor, or hemp juice. There may be shades of difference in the abuse of all these commodities, but they are not easily determined, and, perhaps, hardly worth attempting to appreciate. There is nothing mysterious about the intoxication produced by ordinary stimulants, because we are familiar with it; but it is otherwise with that resulting from opium, to which we are strangers. We have generally only our imaginations to guide us with the last, and we associate it with deeds of desperation and murder;the disposition to commit which, were the drug ever had recourse to on such occasions, which it never is, it would surely allay and not stimulate.
Opium is at present largely consumed in the Malayan Islands, in China, in the Indo-Chinese countries, and in a few parts of Hindustan, much in the same way in which wine, ardent spirits, malt liquor, and cider are consumed in Europe. Its deleterious character has been much insisted on, but generally, by partieswho have had no experience of its effects. Like any other narcotic or stimulant, the habitual use of it is amenable to abuse, and as being more seductive than other stimulants, perhaps more so; but this is certainly the utmost that can be safely charged to it. Thousands consume it without any pernicious result, as thousands do wine and spirits, without any evil consequence. I know of no person of long experience and competent judgment who has not come to this common-sense conclusion. Dr. Oxley, a physician and a naturalist of eminence, and who has had a longer experience than any other man of Singapore, where there is the highest rate of consumption of the drug, gives the following opinion:—“The inordinate use, or rather abuse, of the drug most decidedly does bring on early decrepitude, loss of appetite, and a morbid state of all the secretions; but I have seen a man who had used the drug for fifty years in moderation, without any evil effects; and one man I recollect in Malacca who had so used it was upwards of eighty. Several in the habit of smoking it have assured me that, in moderation, it neither impaired the functions nor shortened life; at the same time fully admitting the deleterious effects of too much.” There is not a word of this that would not be equally true of the use and abuse of ardent spirit, wine, and, perhaps, even tobacco. The historian of Sumatra, whose experience and good sense cannot be questioned, came early to the very same conclusion. The superior curative virtues of opium over any other stimulant are undeniable, and the question of its superiority over ardent spirits appears to me to have been for ever set at rest by the high authority of my friend Sir Benjamin Brodie. “The effect of opium, when taken into the stomach,” says this distinguished philosopher, “is not to stimulate but to soothe the nervous system. It may be otherwise in some instances, but these are rare exceptions to the general rule. The opium eater is, in a passive state, satisfied with his own dreamy condition while under the influence of the drug. He is useless but not mischievous. It is quite otherwise with alcoholic liquors.”—“Psychological Inquiries,” p. 248.
It may be worth while to show what is really the relative consumption in those countries in which its use is alleged to be most pernicious. In the British Settlement of Singapore, owing to the high rate of wages, and the prevalence of a Chinese population, the consumption is at the rate of about three hundred and thirty grains, or adult doses, a year for each person. In Java, where the Chinese do not compose above one in a hundred of the population, and where wages are comparatively low, it does not exceed forty grains. Even in China itself, where the consumption is supposed to be so large, it is no more than one hundred and forty grains, chieflyowing to the poverty of the people, to whom it is for the most part inaccessible. It must not be forgotten, that some of the deleterious qualities of opium are considerably abated, in all the countries in question, by the manner in which it is prepared for use,which consistsin reducing it to a kind of morphine and inhaling its fumes in this state. Moreover, everywhere consumption is restricted by heavy taxation. The opium of India pays, in the first instance, a tax which amounts to three millions sterling. The same opium in Singapore, with a population of sixty thousand, pays another impost of thirty thousand pounds; and, in Java, with a population of ten millions, one of eight hundred thousand pounds.Not the use, then, but the abuse, of opium is prejudicial to health; but in this respect it does not materially differ from wine, distilled spirits, malt liquor, or hemp juice. There may be shades of difference in the abuse of all these commodities, but they are not easily determined, and, perhaps, hardly worth attempting to appreciate. There is nothing mysterious about the intoxication produced by ordinary stimulants, because we are familiar with it; but it is otherwise with that resulting from opium, to which we are strangers. We have generally only our imaginations to guide us with the last, and we associate it with deeds of desperation and murder;the disposition to commit which, were the drug ever had recourse to on such occasions, which it never is, it would surely allay and not stimulate.
I closed my first lecture with a list of fallacies, upon which the objections to the Indo-China opium trade, and the charges brought against England in relation to that trade, are founded, stating that I should return to them and dispose of each separately. I also said in the earlier part of my lecture, that the extraordinary hallucinations which had taken hold of the public mind, with respect to opium smoking in China, arose, amongst other causes, from the fact that the public had formed their opinions from hearsay evidence, and that of the very worst and most untrustworthy kind. I say untrustworthy because hearsay evidence, although in general inadmissible in our law courts, may be in some cases very good and reliable evidence. As this point goes to the root of all these fallacies and false assertions, and the delusions based upon them, I wish to show you why hearsay evidence is, in this case, of the worst and most unreliable kind. In the first instance, I would refer you to the general character of the Chinese for mendacity and deceit, admitted by all writers upon the subject of China and the Chinese, and supported by the general opinion of Europeans who have dwelt amongst them. Now, I am far from saying that every Chinaman is necessarily a liar, or habitually tells untruths for corrupt purposes. The point is, rather, that the Chinese do not understand truth in the sense that we do. The evidence of Chinese witnesses in courts of justice is notorious for its untrustworthy character. The judges are not generally contented with the direct and cross-examination to which witnesses are ordinarily subjected by counsel, but frequently themselves put them under a searching examination, and generallyrequire more evidence in the case of Chinese than they would if Europeans were alone concerned.
From my acquaintance of the Chinese I can say that they are a very good-natured people, especially when good-nature does not cost them much; but they are also a very vindictive people, as, I suppose, most heathen nations are. I have known cases where, to gratify private malice, or to obtain some object, the reason for which would be hard for us to appreciate, a Chinaman has got up a charge without foundation in fact, but supported by false witnesses, who were so well drilled and had so thoroughly rehearsed their parts that it was hard to doubt, and almost impossible to disprove, the accusation. By such means innocent men have been condemned and sentenced to severe punishments, or been unjustly compelled to pay large sums of money. I have, on the other hand, known cases which, according to the evidence brought before me, appeared perfectly clear and good in law; but on taking each witness quietly into my own office, and going through his evidence, the whole fabric would tumble down like a pack of cards; so that, although my client’s case might still be intrinsically good, the witnesses he brought in support of it knew nothing about it beyond what they had heard from others. It would turn out that they had been told this by one person, that by another, and so on, throughout the series of witnesses, not one of them would have any actual knowledge of the alleged facts. In cases like these there would probably be no corrupt motive whatever.
While upon this point I may allude to another peculiar phase in the Chinese character. They are so addicted to falsehood that they will embellish truth, even in cases where they have the facts on their own side. On such occasions they like to add to their story a fringe of falsehood, thinking, perhaps, that by doing so, they will make the truth stand out in brighter colours and appear more favourable in the eyes of the Court and the Jury. Another Chinese peculiarity is the following:—If you put leading questions to a Chinaman upon any particular subject, that is to say, if you interrogate him upon a point, and by your mode of doing so induce him to think that you are desirous of getting one particular kind of answer, he gives you that answer accordingly, out of mere good-nature. In these instances his imagination iswonderfully fertile. The moment he finds his replies afford pleasure, and that there is an object in view, he will give his questioner as much information of this kind as he likes. Not only is this the case with the common people, corresponding to the working or the labouring classes here, but the habit really pervades the highest ranks of Chinese society. It is mentioned in Dr. Williams’s work, how the Chinese as a people think it no shame in being detected in a falsehood. It is very hard to understand, especially for an Englishman, such moral obtuseness. We are so accustomed to consider truth in the first place, and to look upon perjury and falsehood with abhorrence, that it may seem almost like romancing to gravely assure you of these facts.
If I relate a few short anecdotes which are absolutely true, and in which I was personally concerned, I may put the matter more clearly before you. A Chinese merchant, now in Hong Kong, once instructed me to prosecute a claim against a ship-master for short delivery of cargo, and from the documents he gave me, and the witnesses he produced, I had no hesitation in pronouncing his case a good one, although I knew the man was untruthful. When we came into court, knowing my client’s proclivities, my only fear was that he would not be content with simply telling the truth, but would so embellish it with falsehood that the judge would not believe his story. I therefore not only cautioned him myself in “pidgin English,” but instructed my Chinese clerk and interpreter to do so also. My last words to him on going into court were, “Now mind you talkee true. Suppose you talkee true you win your case. Suppose you talkee lie you losee.” The man went into the witness-box, and I am bound to say that on that occasion he did tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, but I could plainly see by his manner and bearing that the task was a most irksome one. When he left the box, after cross-examination, I felt greatly relieved. The defendant, who, I am glad to say, was not an Englishman, although he commanded a British ship, told falsehood after falsehood. There could be no doubt about this, and the judge, Mr. Snowden, the present Puisne Judge of Hong Kong, at last ordered him to leave the box, and gave judgment for my client. Notwithstanding this satisfactory result, I saw that the plaintiff was still dissatisfied. I left the court and hefollowed me out. He still seemed discontented, and had the air of an injured man. When we got clear of the court he actually assailed me for having closed his mouth and deprived him of the luxury of telling untruths. “What for,” said he, “you say my no talkee lie? that man have talkee plenty lie.” I replied, “Oh, that man have losee; you have won.” But with anger in his countenance, he walked sullenly away.
Now I will tell you another—and a totally different case. The judge on this occasion was the late Sir John Smale, Chief Justice of Hong Kong. It was an action brought by a Chinese merchant, carrying on business in Cochin China, against his agent in Hong Kong, a countryman of his, who had not accounted for goods consigned to him for sale. The plaintiff put his case in my hands. When it came into court the defendant was supported by witnesses who seemed to have no connection whatever with the subject-matter of the suit. They, however, swore most recklessly. In cross-examination one of the witnesses completely broke down. The Chief Justice then stopped the case, and characterized the defendant’s conduct “as the grossest attempt at fraud he had ever met with since he had come to China,” and, under the special powers he possessed, sent the false witness to gaol for six weeks. The person so punished for perjury proved to be what we would call a Master of Arts. He was, in fact, an expectant mandarin, ranking very high in China. I should tell you that in that country there is no regular hereditary nobility, nor any aristocracy save the mandarin or official class. The fact is, and in view of Mr. Storrs Turner’s comparison of the Chinese with the savages of Central Africa, I may here mention it, that in China—where these simple, innocent “aborigines,” as it suits the anti-opium advocates to treat them, flourish—education is the sole criterion of rank and precedence. They have a competitive system there, which is undoubtedly the oldest in the world. This man, as I said, was a Master of Arts, and would, in regular course, have been appointed to an important official post and taken rank as a mandarin. He was, I believe, at the time of his sentence, one of the regular examiners at the competitive examinations of young men seeking for employment in the Civil Service of the Empire. When the case ended, I dismissed it from my mind. But, to my great surprise, six orseven of the leading Chinamen of Hong Kong waited upon me on the following day, and implored of me to get this man out of gaol. They declared that the whole Chinese community of Hong Kong felt degraded at having one of their superior order, a learned Master of Arts, consigned to a foreign prison. They assured me that this was the greatest indignity that could have been offered to the Chinese people. I replied that the fact of the prisoner being a man of education only aggravated his offence, that he had deliberately perjured himself in order to cheat my client, and that the foreign community considered his punishment far too lenient, for had he been a foreigner he would have got a far more severe punishment. But they could not see the matter in that light, and went away dissatisfied. They afterwards presented a petition to the Governor, praying for the man’s release, but without success. My object in narrating this to you is to show the utter contempt which the Chinese, not only of the lower orders, but of the better class, have for the truth. I could supplement these cases by many others, all showing that the Chinese do not regard the difference between truth and falsehood in the sense that we do.
To illustrate more clearly what I have told you, I will read to you a short passage from a leading article in the “China Mail,” a daily newspaper published in Hong Kong. The date of the paper is the 3rd of October 1881. The editor is a gentleman who has been out there for twenty years; he is a man of considerable ability and knows the Chinese character perfectly, and I may also mention that he is a near relative of Mr. Storrs Turner. This is what he says:—
The question of the reliability of Chinese witnesses is one which is continually presenting itself to all who have anything to do with judicial proceedings in this colony, and as jurors are usually saddled with the responsibility of deciding how far such evidence is to be credited in most serious cases, the subject is one which appeals to a large body of residents. An eminent local authority, some time since, gave it as his opinion that he did not think a Chinese witness could give accurate evidence, even if the precise truth would best suit his purpose. This is doubtless true to some extent, and it bears directly on one phase of the discussion, viz. that of reliableness, so far as strict accuracy of detail is concerned. But a witness may be regarded as the witness of truth although he fails in that extremely precise or accurate narration of facts and details which goes so far to strengthen truthful testimony. What is meant here by reliability of witnesses, however, is their desire to tell what theybelieveto be the truth. It has been somewhere said, by one of authorityon Chinese matters, that it is not particularly surprising that the Chinese, as a people, are so widely known as economisers of the truth, when their system of government is carefully considered. For a Chinaman, life assumes so many phases, in which a good round lie becomes a valuable commodity, that the only surprise remaining is, that he is ever known to tell the truth.
The question of the reliability of Chinese witnesses is one which is continually presenting itself to all who have anything to do with judicial proceedings in this colony, and as jurors are usually saddled with the responsibility of deciding how far such evidence is to be credited in most serious cases, the subject is one which appeals to a large body of residents. An eminent local authority, some time since, gave it as his opinion that he did not think a Chinese witness could give accurate evidence, even if the precise truth would best suit his purpose. This is doubtless true to some extent, and it bears directly on one phase of the discussion, viz. that of reliableness, so far as strict accuracy of detail is concerned. But a witness may be regarded as the witness of truth although he fails in that extremely precise or accurate narration of facts and details which goes so far to strengthen truthful testimony. What is meant here by reliability of witnesses, however, is their desire to tell what theybelieveto be the truth. It has been somewhere said, by one of authorityon Chinese matters, that it is not particularly surprising that the Chinese, as a people, are so widely known as economisers of the truth, when their system of government is carefully considered. For a Chinaman, life assumes so many phases, in which a good round lie becomes a valuable commodity, that the only surprise remaining is, that he is ever known to tell the truth.
That is exactly what I have already said. It would occupy too much time to read the rest of the article, which is ably written, but the portion I have quoted tends to show the unreliability of Chinese witnesses, even in a solemn Court of Justice.
Now, I think, I have shown you that our Celestial friends present rather an unpromising raw material from which to extract the truth. Yet these are the men from whom the missionaries derive their information as to those wonderful consequences from opium smoking which, the more greedily swallowed, are the more liberally supplied, thus affording an illustration of Mr. Storrs Turner’s extraordinary theory of supply and demand, of which I shall have to speak more by and by. Having exhibited to you the well of truth from which credible evidence is sought to be obtained, I have now to turn to the other side of the question and describe the character and competence of those who draw their facts from that source, and from whom the general public have mainly derived their knowledge of opium and opium smoking.
As regards the missionaries, I have stated already that I hold them in the very highest respect, and they are well deserving of it, and, indeed, of the consideration of the whole community. Were I to state anything to their prejudice or disadvantage, further than what I assert as to their fallacious views and unjustifiable conduct on the opium question, I should certainly be speaking without warrant; for a more respectable, hard-working, or conscientious body of gentlemen it would be difficult to find. Perhaps they are the hardest worked and worst paid class of any foreigners in China. They have a work to perform, the difficulty of which is but partially understood in this country; that is, the task of converting to Christianity these heathen people, who think Confucianism and the other religions engrafted upon it which they follow, and which seem to suit their temperament, immeasurably superior to ours; who point to our prophets and sages as men of yesterday, and look withcomparative contempt upon our literature, laws, and customs. The real difficulty of the situation lies in these facts; believe me, that it is as absurd as it is untrue to say that opium has had anything to do with the slow progress of Christianity in China. Missionary clergymen in China are really not the best men to get at the facts of the opium question. If a foreigner, here in England, were to ask me in which quarter he would be likely to obtain the best information regarding the manners and customs of the English people, I should certainly advise him to get introductions to some of our working clergy of all denominations, because they are the people’s trusted friends and advisers, sharing in their joys and sympathizing in their sorrows, their wants and necessities. They are educated and matter-of-fact men, just the class of persons to afford sound and accurate information as to the country and people. This, I believe, will be generally admitted. The same rule would not apply to our missionary clergymen in China; for they, unlike our clergy at home, are not the trusted friends and advisers of the Chinese people, and, knowing really very little of the inner life of the people, cannot be said to sympathize in their wants and necessities. No doubt there have been some admirable books written on China by missionary clergymen, such as the “Middle Kingdom,” from which I have already quoted, and Dr. Doolittle’s work; but everyone who has lived long in China takes all their statements on every point affecting their missionary labours, and upon many other matters also,cum grano. So far as the manners and customs of the Chinese can be understood from their outdoor life, literature, and laws, they are competent judges enough; but as they are not admitted into Chinese society, and do not possess the confidence of the people, they cannot be accepted as authorities on the inner social life of the natives, so far as regards opium-smoking. They have not at all the same status as regards the Chinese that English clergymen have in respect to their own countrymen here in England; and if a friend were to put such a question to me respecting China and the Chinese, the last people I would refer him to for information would be the missionary clergymen. These missionary gentlemen, if they were at home in England, would, no doubt, have their livings and vicarages, and would take their place with the regular clergy of the country. But inChina things are totally different. There the people not only despise them, but laugh at the creed they are trying to teach. The simplicity of the Gospel is too cold for them. Teeming with the marvellous as their own religions do, no other creed seems acceptable to them that does not deal in startling miracles and offer a continuous supply of supernatural feats. Anyone who reads Dr. Legge’s book, on the religions of China, will see this at once. The Chinese have an accepted belief three or four thousand years older than Christianity, and they are well aware of the fact. Despising Europeans, as they do, and looking upon themselves as a superior race, it is not likely that the Chinese will take missionary clergymen into their confidence, or afford them any trustworthy information about private or personal matters. In short, there is no cordiality between the Chinese and the missionaries.
Still our Chinese friends are a very polite people, and no doubt they are and will continue to be outwardly very civil to missionaries, and, although they may consider them impudent intruders, will give courteous answers to their questions; but it does not follow that they will givetrueanswers. A respectable Chinaman, such as a merchant, a shopkeeper, or an artizan, would consider himself disgraced among his own community if it were known that he had embraced Christianity, or even entertained the thought of doing so. I do not think that, long as I was in China, I had a single regular Chinese client who was a Christian. All my native clients—merchants, shopkeepers, clerks, artizans, and coolies, and I have had professional dealings with thousands of them—were heathens. In very rare instances Chinese professing Christianity will be found holding respectable positions; but, I regret to say, I do not believe that any of such people are sincere. I had myself a clerk in my office for about twelve years; he was a young man educated at St. Paul’s College, in Hong Kong. The College is now closed, but when in existence the pupils there got an excellent education, and were also well clothed and fed. They were not only taught Chinese, as is the case in Chinese schools, but also to read and speak English well. When he went to the school he was not more than seven or eight years old, and left it probably when he was fourteen or fifteen. He was an excellent clerk, a highlyintelligent young fellow, and wrote and spoke English well. Now, if ever there were a case where a lad might be expected to be a sincere convert this was the one. He had been strictly brought up as a Christian, went to church, and read the Bible regularly, and, indeed, was far more kindly treated in the College than English lads are in many schools in this country. Even that boy was not a sincere convert.
When about eighteen years of age he got married, as is the custom with the youth of China. On informing me of his intention, he asked me to procure from the Superintendent of Police the privilege of having “fire crackers” at his wedding, a heathen custom, supposed to drive away evil spirits. I reminded him that I had always believed him a Christian; when he said, “Oh! it’s a Chinese custom.” However, I got him the privilege. But instead of being solemnized in the church, which he had been in the habit of attending when a pupil in St. Paul’s College, according to the rites of the Church of England, his marriage ceremony was celebrated in Chinese fashion, a primitive proceeding, and certainly heathen in its form. He never went near the church at all. A few days afterwards I remarked to him that he had not been married in the church. He laughed, and said, “that as he and his wife were Chinese they could only be married according to Chinese custom.”
Let me give another story in point. I knew a man in Hong Kong who, owing to the difficulty of finding suitable natives who understood English, was for a long time the only Chinese on the jury list. He spoke English fairly well. He was educated at a school presided over by the late Rev. Dr. Morrison, the learned sinologue, who had lived in Hong Kong before my time. His school was an excellent one, and had turned out some very good scholars. I have seen this man go into the jury-box, and often too, into the witness-box, and take the Bible in his hand and kiss it ostentatiously. I used to think he was a sincere Christian, and was glad to see so respectable a Chinaman (for he held a responsible position in a bank) acknowledge in public that he was a Christian. But that man, I afterwards discovered from the best possible authority, was at heart a heathen; he always had idols, or, as we call them, “Josses,” in his house. He also was a Christian in name, and nothing more.
There was another man educated in Dr. Morrison’s school. Dr. Legge knew him very well, and was a sort of patron of his. I suppose it is pretty well known that polygamy is a custom in China, and that it is quite an exception for a Chinese in any decent position there not to have three, four, or more wives; the more he has the greater his consequence among his countrymen. This man, as a matter of fact, had three wives, and when his so-called first wife died, he was in a great fright lest Dr. Legge should discover that he had two more wives, for it is customary that the other wives should attend the funeral of the first as mourners. Now these are the sort of converts, for the most part, to be met with in China. As a rule, they are far less honest and more untruthful than their heathen countrymen, and many Europeans in consequence will not take converts into their service. In proof of this statement I will here give you an extract from a very able article which appeared in the “Hong Kong Daily Press,” an old and well conducted newspaper, of the 31st October 1882. This is it:—