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.
49/52 page 41
![other parts of the race. We are convinced that if ever the day should come when opium is as widely consumed in India as it is now in China the result will be as lamentable there as we know it to be here In submitting this memorial, which we believe expresses the opinion of nearly every Protestant missionary in China, without distinction of nation or church, and of the whole native Protestant Christian community, consisting now of several tens of thousands of persons, we beg to say that we are actuated by feelings of the deepest loyalty to Her Majesty the Empress of India, and by the most profound desire for the truest welfare of her Indian dominions, not less than by the desire to see the curse of opium removed from China. We hold as beyond all shadow of doubt the conviction that thrones and dominions are established by righteousness, and that any source of revenue, however large, that is morally indefensible, tends only in the end to the weakening of the empire and the impoverishment of its resources. J. S. BuRDON, Arthur B. Moule, Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong. Archdeacon at Shanghai. G. E. MouLE, D^yjp Hill, Bishop of the Church of England Wesleyan Missionary Society, Chair- m Mid-Chma. j^an of the Wuchang District. Wm. Muirhead, ^ Chairman, London Missionary So- J^-^van ±5ryant o • . -o i • ciety, Shanghai. Missionary Society, Peking. J. Chalmers, G. Owen, London Missionary Society, Hong London Missionary Society, Peking. Kong. James Sadler, J. Hudson Taylor, M.R.C.S., London Missionary Society, and Director, China Inland Mission. Pastor of Union Church, Amoy. Griffith John, j Stevenson Chairman^ London Missionary So- ' ^hina Inland Mission, Shanghai, ciety, Hankow. ^ „ ^ J.Macgowan, John R. Wolfe, London Missionarv Society, Amoy. Arcndeacon Church Missionary H. L.Mackenzie, Society, Foo chow foo. Presbyterian Church of England Mission, Swatow. We certify that the above signatures have all been authorised by the persons whose names are given, and that the authorisations are in our possession. Arnold Foster, London Mission, Hankow. A, Hudson Broomhall, China Inland Mission, Hankow. Gilbert G. Warren, Hankow, I7th April 1894. Wesleyan Mission, Hankow. [Note.—The signatures of Revs. Thomas Bryson and Jonathan Lees (both of the London Missionary Society, Tientsin), were subsequently added at their request.] N.B.—This very important memorial, referred to above, p. 32, although it is printed in Vol. V. of the Blue Book as evidence, was not even alluded to by the Commis- sioners in their Report. This, however, is perhaps not to be wondered at, seeing that Qio single sentence unfavou%able to opium is anyioliere quoted by the Commissioners from any anti-opium witness in any part of their China Report. The only missionaries they quote from at all are those whose evidence can be made to appear to support pro-opium conclusions.—A.F.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2439810x_0049.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
