The report of the Royal Commission on opium compared with the evidence from China that was submitted to the Commission. : An examination and an appeal. / by Arnold Foster... with preface by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others.
- Great Britain. Royal Commission on Opium
- Date:
- 1898
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The report of the Royal Commission on opium compared with the evidence from China that was submitted to the Commission. : An examination and an appeal. / by Arnold Foster... with preface by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
28/52 page 20
![Sir G. Des Voeux, late Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Hugh Low, formerly Administrator of Perak, both of whom were opposed to any further interference, and from Mr, Duff, a merchant in China of 30 years' standing, whose opinion is— that in the circumstances of their living, food, climate, and habitations, opium has no deleterious effects upon the Chinese; indeed, quite the contrary, for it is a positive need, and they could not do without it. A Note on the history of opium and the poppy in China, by Dr. EdMns, formerly a missionary, and now in the China Customs Service, at I- P-146, Shanghai, will be found in the Appendices to our Eeport. The author shows that the poppy {papaver sommiferum) was cultivated in China as ea/)iy as the 8th century. (Yol. VI., p, 49.) End of Extract. Misleading references. Mr. Stewart Lockhart's evidence. In regard to this review one must say that a part of it is very misleading, to say the least. 1. It is true, e.g., that Mr. Stewart Lockhart made the remark here attributed to him, but he went on to say I am afraid the habit has become so ingrained in the Chinese that they must have their opium. The same witness gives also the following items of evidence which have an important bearing on those moral aspects of the question which the Commissioners declared in the preceding paragraph they were about to discuss. 1380. Well, now, can you from your extensive experience give us your opinion as to the state of Chinese opinion in regard to the opium habit, looking at the state of things not only among the working classes, but also the merchants, the literati, the oiBcial classes ; and also can you tell us what you saw during your sojourn in the interior, which would give you an opportunity of forming an opinion as to how the Chinese regard this question ?—As regards Chinese popular opinion in respect to the opium habit, it is decidedly against it. There is a comnion Cantonese saying which sums up rather appositely The Ten Cannots with regard to the opium sot. It says, The Ten Cannots regarding the Opium-smoker :— He cannot : (1) give up the habit; (2) enjoy sleep; (3) wait for his turn when sharing his pipe with his friends; (4) rise early ; (5) be cured if sick ; (6) help relations in need ; (7) enjoy wealth; '•' (8) plan anything; (9) get credit even when an old customer; (iO) walk any long distance. That, I think, sums up the popular view of the Chinese with regard to the opium habit. 1381. Well, then, and that opinion is shared by high and low ?—I should say it represents popular opinion on the subject, Again, Q, 1393.—■ It is the desire of the [Hong Kong] Government to limit consumption as far as it possibly can consistently with the raising of revenue. (Vol. I., pp. 99, 100.) note, Why this desire, if, as Mr. Duff and other pro-opium witnesses assert, opium has no deleterious effects upon the Chinese ? 2. Of Mr. Duff, sufficient has been said The allusion to already (p. 12). 3. What is to be said of this quotation from Dr. Edkins, formerly a Dr. Edinns' missionary ? That it is certainly calculated to leave a totally false impression on the general reader as to the tenour of Dr. Edkins' Note on the history of opium and the poppy in China. What Dr. Edkins says, is The first distinct mention of the poppy is in the first half of the 8th century. But what then ? For the purposes of an inquiry into the truth about opium-smoking in China that statement happens to be of no importance whatever. Listen to what Dr. Edkins has to say on the real point at issue,—the origin of opium-smoking :— The true significance of Dr. Edkins' note. In the year A.D. 1729 an edict was issued on opium smoking prohibiting the sale of opium and the opening of opium houses. The Government found itself face to face with a dangerous social evil of an alarming kind . . . Opium selling for smoking purposes has//o?;t this time forward {i.e. A.D. 1729) been regarded as a crime by the ruling authorities . . The very earliest instance of legislation on this matter is here before the reader. It was based on local events occurring on the sea coast a long way from Peking. The gradual spread from the province of Fuhkien to all the provinces was still in the future, and was not before the mind of the legislators. . . , The sale of opium was prohibited by statute, but we do not find proof that it was refused as a drug at the Custom Houses of Amoy and Canton. The import steadily increased during the time it was in the hands of the Portuguese till English merchants took it up in 1773 after the conquest of Bengal by Clive. The East India Company took the opium trade into its own hands in 1781. (Vol. I. p. 156. 27.)](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2439810x_0028.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
