593
4
deal with the question. He had studied the subject on the spot and had travelled into the vast provinces of the west of China which produced enormous quantities of opium. Having travelled 1,000 miles upon the Yang-tsze River, he had, at one point, to pick his way through piles of cases of opium that had come, not from India, but from the poppy-fields of the west for export to the eastern provinces, and 1,000 miles further he was in a district which produced four times as much opium as came from India. They must endeavour to assist the Chinese Government to stamp out the evil at its powerful root, and that was the enormous production of opium in China itself. Forces weighed in the scale in favour of increasing the native production. The Chinese Government derived a revenue of 7,000,000l. from taxation on opium. Again, the officials who were relied on to stamp out the evil were, in a large number of cases, very largely interested in the continuation of the production in China. The Report of the Philippine Commissioners stated that they had ascertained that certain of the high officials who wrote the most eloquent letters condemning the traffic and appealing to foreign nations to prevent the introduction of opium into China were believed to have steadily increased the areas of cultivation in their own domains. That was one of the great evils that they had to guard against. Another reason why the people of China were necessarily very much inclined to continue to produce opium in the same quantities at the present time was that the crop was very much more valuable than ordinary cereals, the proportion of profit being 5l. 16s. for an acre producing raw opium to 4l. 5s. 6d. for an acre of wheat. While travelling in Szechuan, he had inquired into this matter among European missionaries, Chinese merchants, and coolies. In more instances than not he found that the peasants were simply jubilant at the idea of a cessation of the importation of Indian opium. What was the reason of their jubilation? Not that they were desirous of coming to the relief of the victims of opium, but because they saw the prospect of administering to these people in the future an amount of opium one-tenth greater than they were able to at the present time. He did not deny that there were many cases in which the men of China were undoubtedly sincere in their endeavour to rid themselves of this horrible evil. The salutary public opinion which was gradually springing up was doing an immense amount of good in educating people, but this public opinion had great odds against it at the present time, and if they were to carry out the policy advocated by the honourable member for Nuneaton they would give a stimulus to the production of opium in Western China which no rules or regulations could possibly prevent. The statements in the White Paper bore out his contention that there was an immense difficulty in the way of putting down what, after all, was the root of the evil, the production of opium in China itself, and therefore he desired to emphasize as strongly as he could that the best, indeed, the only, policy which it was possible for this country to pursue, if it was really and sincerely desirous of assisting the Chinese Government in its task was the policy now being pursued by the Government of reducing the export of opium from India to China, not immediately, but in the same proportion as, and pari passu with, the reduction of the production of opium in China itself. He hoped the House would be disposed to give the Government every credit for carrying out what they honestly believed, as he believed, to be the only satisfactory policy with regard to this question.
Mr. Ellis (Nottingham, Rushcliffe) thought there had been a distinct march forward that evening. They were in sight of the end of this evil. It had been twice declared in that House that the opium trade was morally indefensible, and in these circumstances it could not be ended too soon. The Chinese welcomed the declaration of the Secretary for India in 1901 that the Government would agree with them in any plan for the restriction of the consumption of opium brought forward in good faith, even if it cost them some sacrifice. Could any one have the slightest doubt as to the sincerity of the Government of the Chinese Empire? We might look to China with the utmost hope. Financially the reform was within reach in India. We need trouble ourselves no longer about the financial aspect, because the Viceroy himself had said we could not refuse to assist China on the ground of loss of revenue. As to the date when prohibition should come into force, if there was any proposal from China for shortening the period he thought we ought to welcome the shortening. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Meysey-Thompson (Stafford, Handsworth) said he had just returned from India, and he knew the grave difficulties in the way of the suppression of the opium traffic there. They were all agreed that opium dens should be put down; but a large number of Indians used opium to a small degree without any real harm to their health. Many of them believed that it was a valuable febrifuge, and it was eaten in those districts which suffered most severely from fever. If they put down the opium traffic suddenly they would drive the people to alcohol, cocaine, and Indian hemp, and worse results would follow. If China honestly determined to restrict the use of opium we should give her all the help in our power. By taking too rapid a stride they would cause a reaction, and create evils greater than those that now existed. He congratulated the Government on the strong action they had taken, and he hoped they would not allow themselves to be forced by well-meaning but impractical people to go faster than they thought it was wise to go.
5
Sir H. Cotton pointed out that the argument that it would be difficult to compensate the Indian cultivators of the poppy proceeded upon a serious fallacy, because the Indian cultivators frequently protested against this cultivation. They would rather be free to cultivate what they liked, because the cultivation of other crops would be more profitable to them.
Sir J. Kennaway (Devon, Honiton) expressed his lively satisfaction at the progress made in this question by this evening's debate and at the active steps taken by the Government.
Mr. Bennett (Oxfordshire, Woodstock) said that among the many Oriental students at Oxford he had never met one who was not in deadly earnest in this matter. The only hostility arose from officials and traders. The suggestion that the moral responsibility of this country depended on the attitude of China would not hold water. He congratulated the Government on what was the most hopeful outlook that had ever been presented on this question. He had never had a more painful shock than when he heard Mr. Morley say that nothing could be done because of the revenue difficulty. The White Paper stated the official mind in India as being opposed to any increase in the rate of import duty levied on the imports of opium in China. While India levied a tax for her own revenue purposes, she yet denied the right of another country to levy a duty for a moral purpose. The revenue difficulty was, no doubt, a serious one in India, but many honourable Members thought that the military expenditure might be lessened in order to secure the 8,000,000l. needed to clear our consciences of this abominable curse.
Sir E. Grey (Northumberland, Berwick).-I should like cordially to indorse the remark made by my honourable friend the seconder of this Resolution when he gave to the House of Commons the credit for the progress which has been made in this question owing to the line it took in the debate two years ago and on other occasions in recent years. I think he is justified in claiming for the consistent, strenuous, and repeated expression of opinion by the British House of Commons a real effect in making progress in the opium question in China. But though I am prepared to guardedly follow the line he and other speakers have taken during the debate, I doubt if I shall satisfy the honourable gentleman who has just sat down, and I cannot agree with the criticisms he passed on the language used by my noble friend the Secretary of State for India two years ago, which, I think, are not justified. It is true that the promise made by my noble friend two years ago was guarded, but it was followed by a large measure of fulfilment (hear, hear); the words were careful, but the performance has been up to the level of the words. (Hear, hear.) If the language was cautious, it was because, as everyone who has followed the public career of my noble friend will appreciate, he is exceedingly chary in raising expectations that he may think not easy of fulfilment. It is true he pointed out difficulties, and it is no good ignoring difficulties. It is part of the duty of a Minister to point out difficulties that cannot be ignored and which sooner or later, whether they are ignored or not, will have to be encountered. He has to point out the difficulties, and if he does not no one else will do so, and the House will not have full information. My noble friend did point out the difficulties, but it is a wrong construction to place upon his speech to say that he pointed out the difficulties in order to plead them as excuses for not doing anything at all. Clearly that was not his object.
Mr. Bennett said that was not his intention.
Sir E. Grey-I think I shall be in the recollection of the House in saying that the honourable gentleman referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for India quoted official opinion in India, and he criticized the speech as giving too much importance to official opinion. My noble friend stated the difficulties of the case that the House might be aware of them; but, as his action has shown (and the Under-Secretary for India can bear me out), there has been no intention on the part of the Secretary of State, of the India Office, or of officials to plead difficulties as excuses for not doing anything. As a matter of fact, the policy of the Indian Government has been to convince the Chinese Government that they are in earnest in this matter by proceeding with large instalments of reductions in exports. Now I go to one or two questions with which the Foreign Office is specially concerned. The
[2967 g-1]
593
4
deal with the question. He had studied the subject on the spot and had travelled into the vast provinces of the west of China which produced enormous quantities of opium. Having travelled 1,000 miles upon the Yang-tsze River, he had, at one point, to pick his way through piles of cases of opium that had come, not from India, but from the poppy-fields of the west for export to the eastern provinces, and 1,000 miles further he was in a district which produced four times as much opium as came from India. They must endeavour to assist the Chinese Government to stamp out the evil at its Powerful root, and that was the enormous production of opium in China itself. forces weighed in the scale in favour of increasing the native production. The Chinese Government derived a revenue of 7,000,0001. from taxation ou opium. Again, the officials who were relied on to stamp out the evil were, in a large number of cases, very largely interested in the continuation of the production in China. The Report of the Philippine Commissioners stated that they had ascertained that certain of the high officials who wrote the most eloquent letters condemning the traffic and appealing to foreign nations to prevent the introduction of opium into China were believed to have steadily increased the areas of cultivation in their own domains. That was one of the great evils that they had to guard against. Another reason while the people of China were necessarily very much inclined to continue to produce opium in the same quantities at the present time was that the crop was very much more valuable than ordinary cereals, the proportion of profit being 51. 16s. Ed. for an acre producing raw opium to 4l. s. 6d. for an acre of wheat. While travelling in Szechuan, he had inquired into In more this matter among European missionaries, Chinese merchants, and coolies." instances than not he found that the peasants were simply jubilant at the idea of a cessation of the importation of Indian opium. What was the reason of their jubilation? Not that they were desirous of coming to the relief of the victims of opium, but because they saw the prospect of administering to these people in the future an amount He did not of opium one-tenth greater than they were able to at the present time. deny that there were many cases in which the men of China were undoubtedly sincere in their endeavour to rid themselves of this horrible evil. The salutary public opinion which was gradually springing up was doing an immense amount of good in educating people, but this public opinion had great odds against it at the present time, and if they were to carry out the policy advocated by the honourable member for Nuneaton they they would give a stimulus to the production of opium in Western China which no rules or regulations could possibly prevent. The statements in the White Paper bore out his contention that there was an immense difficulty in the way in putting down what, after all, was the root of the evil, the production of opium in China itself, and therefore he desired to emphasize as strongly as he could that the best, indeed, the only, policy which it was possible for this country to pursue, if it was really and sincerely desirous of assisting the Chinese Government in its task was the policy now being pursued by the Government of reducing the export of opium from India to China, not immediately, but in the same proportion as, and pari passu with, the reduction of the production of opium in China itself. He hoped the House would be disposed to give the Government every credit for carrying out what they honestly believed, as he believed, to be the only satisfactory policy with regard to this question.
Mr. Ellis (Nottingham, Rushcliffe) thought there had been a distinct march forward that evening. They were in sight of the end of this evil. It had been twice declared in that House that the opium trade was morally indefensible, and in these circumstances it could not be ended too soon. The Chinese welcomed the declaration of the Secretary for India in 1901 that the Government would agree with them in any plan for the restriction of the consumption of opium brought forward in good faith, even if it cost them some sacrifice. Could any one have the slightest doubt as to the sincerity of the Government of the Chinese Empire? We might look to Chnia with the utmost hope. Financially the reform was within reach in India. We need trouble ourselves no longer about the financial aspect, because the Viceroy himself had said we could not refuse to assist China on the ground of loss of revenue. As to the date when prohibition should come into foree, if there was any proposal from China for shortening the period he thought we ought to welcome the shortening. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Meysey-Thompson (Stafford, Handsworth) said he had just returned from India, and he knew the grave difficulties in the way of the suppression of the opium traffic there. They were all agreed that opium dens should be put down; but a large number of Indians used opium to a small degree without any real harm to their health. Many of them believed that it was a valuable febrifuge, and it was eaten in those districts which suffered most severely from fever. If they put down the opium traffic suddenly they would drive the people to alcohol, cocaine, and Indian hemp, and worse results
5
would follow. If China honestly determined to restrict the use of opium we should give, herfall the help in our power. By taking too rapid a stride they would cause a reaction, and create evils greater than those that now existed. He congratulated the Government' on the strong action they had taken, and he hoped they would not allow themselves to be forced by well-meaning but impractical people to go faster than they thought it was wise to go.
Sir H. Cotton pointed out that the argument that it would be difficult to compensate the Indian cultivators of the poppy proceeded upon a serious fallacy, because the Indian cultivators frequently protested against this cultivation. They would rather be free to cultivate what they liked, because the cultivation of other crops would be more profitable' to them.
Sir J. Kennaway (Devon, Honiton) expressed his lively satisfaction at the progress made in this question by this evening's debate and at the active steps taken by the Government.
Mr. Bennett (Oxfordshire, Woodstock) said that among the many Oriental students at Oxford he had never met one who was not in deadly earnest in this matter. The only hostility arose from officials and traders. The suggestion that the moral responsibility of this country depended on the attitude of China would not hold water, He congratulated the Government on what was the most hopeful outlook that had ever been presented on this question. He had never had a more painful shock than when he heard Mr. Morley say that nothing could be done because of the revenue difficulty. The White Paper stated the official mind in India as being opposed to any increase in the rate of import duty levied on the imports of opium in China. While India levied a tax for her own revenue purposes, she yet denied the right of another country to levy a duty for a moral purpose. The revenue difficulty was, no doubt, a serious one in India, but many honourable Members thought that the military expenditure might be lessened in order to secure the 8,000,0001. needed to clear our consciences of this abominable curse.
Sir E. Grey (Northumberland, Berwick).-I should like cordially to indorse the remark made by my honourable friend the seconder of this Resolution when he gave to the House of Commons the credit for the progress which has been made in this question owing to the line it took in the debate two years ago and on other occasions in recent years. I think he is justified in claiming for the consistent, strenuons, and repeated expression of opinion by the British House of But Commons a real effect in making progress in the opium question in China. though I am prepared to guardedly follow the line he and other speakers have taken during the debate, I doubt if I shall satisfy the honourable gentleman who has just sat down, and I cannot agree with the criticisms he passed on the language used by my noble friend the Secretary of State for India two years ago, which, I think, are not justified. It is true that the promise made by my noble friend two years ago was guarded, but it was followed by a large measure of fulfilment (hear, hear); the words were careful, but the performance has been up to the level of the words. (Hear, hear.) If the language was cautious, it was because, as everyone who has followed the public carcer of my noble friend will appreciate, he is exceedingly chary in raising expectations that he may think not easy of fulfilment. It is true he pointed out difficulties, and it is no good ignoring difficulties. It is part of the duty of a Minister to point out difficulties that cannot be ignored and which sooner or later, whether they' are ignored or not, will have to be encountered. He has to point out the difficulties, and if he does not no one else will do so, and the House will not have full information. My noble friend did point out the difficulties, but it is a wrong construction to place upon his speech to say that he pointed out the difficulties in order to plead them as excuses for not doing anything at all. Clearly that was not his object.
Mr. Bennett said that was not his intention.
Sir E. Grey-I think I shall be in the recollection of the House in saying that the honourable gentleman referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for India quoted official opinion in India, and he criticized the speech as giving too much importance to official opinion. My noble friend stated the difficulties of the case that the House might be aware of them; but, as his action has shown (and the Under- Secretary for India can bear me out), there has been no intention on the part of the Secretary of State, of the India Office, or of officials to plead difficulties as excuses for not doing anything. As a matter of fact, the policy of the Indian Government has been to convince the Chinese Government that they are in earnest in this Now I go matter by proceeding with large instalments of reductions in exports. to one or two questions with which the Foreign Office is specially concerned. The
[2967 g-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.