"One very able and influential (Chinese) gentleman in my neighbourhood proposed lately to get up a great petition, signed by all the officials, literati, gentry, and business-men, to be presented to the Queen of England, begging her not to send any more opium to China" (vol. v. p. 241).

In a memorial presented to the Royal Commissioners by British missionaries of more than twenty-five years' standing, some very clear evidence is given as to the state of feeling amongst the Chinese people in regard to the question under consideration. This memorial is signed by Bishop Burdon, late of Hong Kong, forty years resident among the Chinese, Bishop Moule of Mid-China, and by fifteen other senior missionaries belonging to various British Missionary Societies. Some of these are men of the highest possible standing, who would be universally recognised as amongst the greatest living authorities on matters Chinese. I shall have occasion to refer to this document again. In it the memorialists enumerate certain facts connected with the opium trade, which they say their long experience in China leads them to regard as being indisputable.

"We believe it to be a fact, established beyond possibility of reasonable doubt, that the consumption of opium in China is exerting a distinctly deteriorating effect upon the Chinese people, physically, socially, and morally. . . . It is a fact which cannot be reasonably doubted that the conscience of the Chinese people as a whole is distinctly opposed to the opium habit. . . . We ourselves have never met with Chinamen who defended the practice as morally harmless. . . . It is a fact that the opium trade, though now no longer contraband, is highly injurious, not only to China, but also to the fair name of Great Britain. The past history and the present enormous extent of the opium trade with India produces, as we can testify from personal experience, suspicion and dislike in the minds of the Chinese people towards foreigners in general. . . . In view of these facts (ie., the facts of Chinese opinion) the undersigned venture respectfully to express the earnest hope that the Royal Commissioners will embody in their Report a united recommendation to her Majesty that the Indian Government should immediately restrict the Indian production of opium to the supply of what is needed for medicinal purposes in India and elsewhere.'

All the foregoing testimony, direct and indirect, as to the popular view in China regarding the import of Indian opium, and pages more to the same effect, is, as we have seen, summed up by the Commissioners in the one concise, but absolutely untrue, sentence, "There is no evidence from China of any popular desire that the import of Indian opium should be stopped."

The second statement of the Report which I have asserted to be opposed to fact has reference to the general character of the medical evidence from China. I cannot here give, as I should like to do, a complete list of all the medical witnesses, or describe the character of the evidence given by each one. Two years ago I published an article on this subject in the only medical journal that exists in China,

and on these lines: I classified all the medical witnesses in regard to their testimony on the one question, whether opium-smoking in China generally is, or is not, practised in moderation. The result showed that so far from the majority of the medical witnesses saying on this point what the Commissioners assert that they say, the majority by two to one-or, more exactly, by twenty-seven to thirteen-said the opposite. I have never had the fairness of my classification called in question, but I was told that its accuracy was disputed in two cases. The evidence of two of the medical witnesses had seemed to me to be indefinite, but, on the whole, to incline to the description that the Commissioners had given of the prevailing medical opinion in China. Accordingly, for the sake of perfect fairness, I classed these two witnesses among the thirteen who might be regarded as upholding the Commissioners' view. A few days after my article appeared I received a message from one of them, through a common friend, to the effect that I had classified him wrongly and had misunderstood any expression in his evidence which made him appear to state that opiumsmoking was usually practised in moderation. I was told by some medical friends of the other witness that I had made a similar mistake in his case, and that he would certainly not wish to be understood as holding the view I had credited him with. My figures thus corrected show that the Commissioners' majority was made up of eleven in forty, the minority consisting of twenty-nine.

After this experience of the discrepancy existing between some of the Commissioners' statements about the evidence and the evidence itself it seemed absolutely necessary to go further and examine other statements made by them in regard to other items of evidence. I shall give later on a few additional specimens, selected almost at random from many others, of this further examination of the Blue-book on opium. But before doing this let me call attention to one remarkable and unlooked-for feature which characterises the Report as a whole. This is the ostentatiously moral tone of it. The word "moral," as it occurs in the Resolution of the House of Commons which asks for the appointment of a Commission, was evidently deemed by the Commissioners to be one of great importance for the purposes of their Report. We are continually having waived before our eyes such expressions as these: "moral objects," "a moral standpoint," "moral aspects," "moral results." moral results." Unfortunately, however, the zeal of the Commissioners for the moral aspects of a question never seems to come to the point; it always fails them at the right moment. Just when we have been led to expect that some very important question. is going to be dealt with on moral lines and regarded from a moral point of view, we find ourselves being hurried off on another line altogether. We feel like a man who, having ridden up to some object on horseback with a view to examining it, suddenly finds that

his horse shies at it and bolts in another direction. Take the following example of the Commissioners' use of the word "moral," and of their prompt evasion of the moral issue which a statement of their own suggests. In paragraph No. 125 (vol. vi. p. 48) we read:

"We have now to deal briefly with the question of the production of opium in India, as affected by the moral and political considerations arising out of the connection of the opium trade of India and China."

There is no show of any moral treatment of the question in the remainder of this paragraph, or in the next (paragraph No. 126), but only some statistics of the trade. In paragraph No. 127 the Commissioners proceed thus:

"The quantity of both Bengal and Malwa opium exported to China and the Far East is, therefore, larger than that consumed in India, to which it bears the proportion of about twelve to one."

Here, at all events, is a fact stated of tremendous moral significance. The Indian export trade is twelve times larger than the home trade! Opium being, as everybody knows it is, a dangerous poison, it follows naturally from the above statement that it must be a matter of far greater importance to the welfare of mankind to know what consequences, moral and physical, follow on the consumption of this enormous quantity of Indian-grown opium in China and the Far East than to know what consequences, moral and physical, follow on the consumption of the vastly smaller quantity of this opium that goes on in India. Here is a clear moral issue raised by a statement of the Commissioners themselves, and one demanding, above all else, careful and thorough moral treatment. But where do we find the Commissioners directly they have brought us up to this point that we may consider the relative magnitudes of the export trade in Indian opium and of the home trade respectively? In paragraph No. 125 they said they were going to discuss the moral bearings of the subject. But no sooner have we come up to it than we find them scouring away another direction:

in

"It is plain, therefore," they continue, "that the financial interests of India are far more deeply concerned in the export trade than in the home consumption of opium. The financial aspects of the question are discussed in the next section of our Report, &c. &c."

But where, we ask, are the moral aspects discussed, and the real moral difficulties of the situation dealt with as a moral question? And the answer is, Nowhere. We are reminded of the Scotch divine who, when brought in the course of his exposition to a passage of Scripture that he felt unable to expound, would remark, "We shall look this difficulty in the face and pass on." The Commis

sioners evidently find themselves more at home in finances than in morals, and prefer the discussion of financial questions to that of ethics.

But I return to the Commissioners' work as judges, their way of summarising and reporting on the facts of evidence submitted to them by China witnesses. In paragraph No. 131 of the Report (vol. vi. p. 49) we have a summary given by the Commissioners of evidence taken by them from China and other witnesses from the East, in London. In the preceding paragraph they introduce the subject in the manner that is characteristic of the Report: "We now proceed to discuss the moral and political aspects of the question as affecting China." "Moral" treatment must always at least be suggested. After summarising a vast amount of most important evidence, which was strongly unfavourable to opium, very briefly and in a most unsatisfactory fashion, they refer to one of the Hong Kong official witnesses thus:

"Mr. S. Lockhart, the protector of Chinese in Hong Kong, also gave evidence, stating that, in his opinion, it would be no more possible to enforce the prohibition of opium in Hong Kong than that of drink in the United Kingdom."

They continue:

"We received, also, a communication in writing from Sir G. Des Voeux and from Mr. Duff, a merchant in China of thirty 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. Edkins, formerly a missionary, and now in the China Customs Service, at Shanghai, will be found in the Appendices to our Report. The author shows that the poppy (papaver somniferum) was cultivated in China as early as the eighth century."

The Commissioners have appealed to Mr. S. Lockhart, Mr. Duff, and Dr. Edkins. To Mr. S. Lockhart and the other authorities whom they quote shall they go. It will be remembered that this summary of evidence was introduced with the announcement that we were about to discuss "the moral aspects" of the question as affecting China.

1. What has Mr. Lockhart to say on these moral aspects of the opium question in Hong Kong? We should infer from the Commissioners' reference to his evidence that Mr. Lockhart did not touch upon this point. This would be quite a mistaken assumption. It is true that Mr. Lockhart made the remark attributed to him above, but he went on to explain why, in his opinion, it would be impossible to enforce the prohibition of opium in Hong Kong. "I am afraid,” he

adds, “the habit has become so ingrained in the Chinese that they must have their opium "-i.e., Mr. Lockhart deplores the bondage under which the Chinese have come to opium.

As further bearing on the moral view of the subject suggested by Mr. Lockhart's evidence, take this question of the Commissioners and the answer given to it by Mr. Lockhart:

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 official 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 common 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; (10) 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."

Mr. Lockhart is not an anti-opium witness. He is too firmly convinced that the "financial interests" of Hong Kong need the opium revenue to allow of his saying much to endanger that revenue. Asked about the issuing of an edict of total prohibition of the consumption of opium in Hong Kong, he says, "From a revenue point of view it would be injurious to the colony." Nevertheless, he admits that "it is the desire of the Government to limit consumption as far as it possibly can consistently with the raising of revenue." How is this? If opium consumption is not injurious to the Chinese, why should the Hong Kong Government wish to limit it "as far as it possibly can consistently with the raising of revenue"? The truth is, the admissions of Mr. Lockhart, like those of many other pro-opium witnesses, have a very important bearing on the moral aspects of the opium question. But the Commissioners will not take any notice of them; they will only "look them in the face and pass on."

2. The next witness to whom the Commissioners appeal is Mr. Duff, "a merchant in China of thirty years' standing." This, be it noted, is the only quotation given in the Report from any China witness whose evidence was given in London. About twenty of such witnesses appeared before the Commission in person and were cross-examined.

* Mr. Lockhart introduces the word "sot." The Chinese saying refers to the habitual opium-smoker, the word "sot" does not occur in it. The opium habit is what the saying condemns.