The Relation of England's Opium Policy to Christian Missions in China.
By James Brand
PROFESSOR LEGGE of Oxford reports, in his "Religions of China," the following conversation between himself and the Chinese ambassador at London in 1877: "'You know,' said the Chinaman, 'both England and China. Which country do you say is the better of the two?' I replied, 'England.' He was disappointed, and added, 'I mean, looking at them from a moral standpoint; looked at from the standpoint of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, which country do you say is the better?' After some demur and fencing I again replied, 'England.' I never saw a man more surprised. He pushed his chair back, got on his feet, took a turn across the room, cried out, 'You say that, looked at from the moral standpoint, England is better than China! Then how is it that England insists on our taking her opium?'"
It is easy for the Christian reader to spring to the conclusion that this is only another instance of the conceit and ignorance of the Chinese people. But if we distinguish between the English people and the English Government, and remember that the Chinaman has known England chiefly as a great commercial power, a different conclusion is at least possible. At any rate, the Chinaman's opinion starts some questions which cannot be settled by simply saying that he is a heathen. A moral evil affecting the destiny of millions of men, and sustained by the Government of one of the most powerful empires of Christendom, would seem to be always a timely theme. But there are two or three special reasons why it should be discussed anew at this time. The fact that, in the providence of God, China has become one of the chief mission fields of the world, brings that country into special prominence.
Again, the remarkable awakening of the Christian conscience of the English people themselves on this subject is stimulating thought and interest in other lands. Earnest Christian men in England have fought the opium policy from the beginning. But in recent years the agitation of the subject has become general and intense. The "Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade," with the Earl of Shaftesbury at its head, is pushing the defenders of the traffic to the wall, and this society is supported by almost the entire Christian sentiment of England. Hitherto, American missionaries in China have wisely left their English brethren there to fight the battle with their own Government. But now it would seem to be the duty of all Christians to extend their sympathy and aid to English reformers in this anti-opium struggle, both in the interest of China and of England herself.
Moreover, Americans have a peculiar interest in this theme. To them it has become a personal one. The opium curse forced upon China so many years ago is now, through Chinese immigration, introduced here, and, like the liquor traffic, stands directly athwart the path of Christian progress in America as well as China. The last ten or twelve years have witnessed an enormous growth of this vice in all parts of our country. Of the 105,000 Chinese in this country, more than 20,000 are victims of opium. The amount of opium consumed for smoking purposes, in 1880, was then increasing at the rate of 17,000 pounds per year. Opium dens were multiplying in every city.
According to the recent statement of Dr. F. N. Hammond, made to the Medical Society of New York, "only about 20,000 pounds of opium were used in the United States in 1840. In 1880 the amount had risen to 533,450 pounds. In 1868 there were about 70,000 opium eaters in this country; now there are more than 500,000. Women are addicted to the use of the drug even more than men." If these statements are reliable, the opium vice is fast becoming a national evil of America as of China. And this is an ever-strengthening reason why the subject should be kept before the American public.
No intelligent discussion of the opium question can be had without at least a brief sketch of the historical facts involved, sufficient to put the salient points of the case before the reader's mind.
England's opium policy began in 1773. Eight years later, Warren Hastings sent 1,600 chests of opium to China. In 1795 the East India Company became the "sole cultivators and sellers of opium in British India." The opium revenue of India at once rose to 200,000 pounds a year. Here began the great temptation to the Chinese people, and here began also the desperate but ineffectual struggle of the Chinese Government against that evil which is now undermining the most venerable empire of earth. In 1799 the emperor issued a decree against the importation of opium, and threatened transportation, and afterward death by strangling, to opium smokers. This was followed by heavy penalties against smuggling, which had become the prevailing crime. Notwithstanding these radical measures, the business was pushed by the company till the profits at Calcutta rose to more than 1,000,000 pounds sterling a year.
The charter of the East India Company expired in 1834, and the British Government itself became the sole manager of the China trade. From this point onward Parliament is alone responsible. The trade was henceforth no longer a mere matter of smuggling. There was no duty on opium to be avoided at the Chinese ports. Its sale in any form was a crime. The trade was simply a violation of law, carried on by brute force. The only right was might; the only motive, revenue. Armed gunboats laden with opium entered the Chinese waters and landed their cargoes in "sheer defiance of the Government."
And now poor China, in her desperation and helplessness, becomes divided as to what it is best to do. Some, in despair of suppressing the trade, advise its legalization, and vainly hope thereby (as some do with our own liquor traffic) to diminish the evil. Others beg the emperor to take still more stringent measures to stamp it out. The latter course overwhelmingly prevailed. Accordingly Lin reached Canton in 1839, seized 20,000 chests of opium, threw them into the Canton River, and declared all trade with England at an end.
This was too much. England was not to be despoiled of her revenue. The laws of China were "heathenish." The British flag had been insulted. Retribution must follow; and hence the first "opium war," the defeat of China, and the treaty of Nankin in 1842. This gave four ports to British trade; Hongkong became a British possession; $21,000,000 was paid by China to reimburse England for the expenses of the war, and $6,000,000 more to pay for the opium which Lin had destroyed, and which was really contraband by law. But even in this forced treaty, no point was yielded by the Chinese as to the legalization of the opium traffic. The amount of opium sent from India to China, however, now that the right of might was established, rose from 25,000 to 70,000 chests.
In 1856, a boat named The Arrow, owned and manned by the Chinese, but commanded by an Englishman, and thus flying the British flag, was boarded by the Chinese commissioner Yeh. The English governor of Hong Kong demanded apology and reparation. China refused, and the second opium war was the result. After two years of unequal strife, China was of course hopelessly defeated, humiliated, and compelled, in 1858, to submit to the treaty of Tientsin. By that treaty the Yang-tze River and five more seaports were opened to English trade; an ambassador was established at Pekin; Canton was fined $4,000,000; the legalization of the opium trade was extorted, and English ex-territoriality established.
It should be noticed, however, that although the Chinese Government was practically compelled to legalize the opium traffic, it did not cease to implore the British Government to give it up. In 1869 the Chinese minister addressed to Sir Rutherford Alcock a petition urging the abandonment of the trade on the grounds of justice and humanity. The only result of this petition was, that in order to soothe the feelings of China, a promise was made that the Imperial Government should be allowed to raise the import duty from thirty to fifty taels per chest. Even that promise, however, owing to the opposition of the English chambers of commerce, was never kept.
To conclude this mortifying history, the English Government in India in 1875 sent out an exploring party through Burmah, to discover, if possible, routes of inland trade with the southwest provinces of China. Passports were obtained for these visitors. An English officer was dispatched through China to meet them. He reached them in safety, but was afterward savagely murdered by the Chinese near the Burmese border, and the exploring party was driven back.
For this cruel outrage on the part of the Chinese, reparation was demanded of the Government at Pekin, and this led to the famous Chefoo convention between Sir Thomas Wade and Li Hung Chang, which resulted in several further concessions on the part of the Chinese. They were to make reparation for the Yunnan outrage; they were to open several new ports to British trade; they were to permit English exploring parties to pass through the provinces; they were to publish through the empire a proclamation protecting foreign travelers, and, of course (a sine qua non in every case), they were to pay 200,000 ounces of silver to Great Britain.
The case is put thus by an English writer: "By the tariff of the treaty of Tientsin, we compel China to admit Indian opium into her treaty ports at a low duty which we refuse to allow her to increase, and at the same time prevent her from extinguishing smuggling." It seems that after nine or ten years of refusal on the part of the English Government to ratify the Chefoo convention, China has at last been induced to accept an additional article, which will operate wholly in the interest of a still more extensive sale of Indian opium in China; as will be seen from the following statement in the New York Independent for June 4, 1885: "The new opium treaty between England and China is almost settled. This new convention assumes the form of an additional article to the Chefoo treaty, and abolishes all the barriers heretofore existing against the free diffusion of opium throughout the Chinese Empire inland."—James Brand, D. D., in Bibliotheca Sacra.