RAS-1986 — Page 249

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

232

CARL SMITH

tal to their people, and it will thus be in their power to cut off the supply altogether by a pecuniary sacrifice, far less than that voluntarily taken by England in the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies.

A number of historians have regarded Li Hung-chang's attitude towards the opium problem as ambiguous. However that may be, he took a strong stand in a letter he addressed to the Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade.

His statement was couched in a high moral tone.

"Opium is a subject of discussion of which England and China can never meet on common ground. China views the whole question from a moral standpoint; England from a fiscal. England would sustain a source of revenue in India, while China contends for the lives and prosperity of its people. The ruling motive of China is to repress opium by heavy taxation everywhere, whereas with England the manifest object is to make opium cheaper, and thus increase and stimulate the demand in China.”

Li recognised that the crux of the issue was the importance of opium for the revenue of India, and thus indirectly of Britain. He contended that China did not tax opium because of the revenue it produced, but “the present import duty on opium was established, not from choice, but because China submitted to the adverse decision of arms. The war must be considered as China's standing protest against legalising such a revenue.

A Shanghai paper did not believe the letter was composed by Viceroy Li. It stated: "It bears the impression of foreign --- we had almost written missionary penmanship throughout.” It was perhaps the product of one of the Viceroy's advisers trained in a missionary school, such as Wu T’ing-fang (Ng Choy) or Chan Lai-sun. Whoever wrote it, it went out under Li's name and must have represented his opinions.

The letter became the subject of a question in Parliament to the Secretary of State for India as to whether the Indian Government was taking any steps to review Britain's position on the opium

Edit History

2026-05-13 03:36:01 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
232 CARL SMITH tal to their people, and it will thus be in their power to cut off the supply altogether by a pecuniary sacrifice, far less than that voluntarily taken by England in the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies. A number of historians have regarded Li Hung-chang's attitude towards the opium problem as ambiguous. However that may be, he took a strong stand in a letter he addressed to the Anglo-Oriental Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade. His statement was couched in a high moral tone. "Opium is a subject of discussion of which England and China can never meet on common ground. China views the whole question from a moral standpoint; England from a fiscal. England would sustain a source of revenue in India, while China contends for the lives and prosperity of its people. The ruling motive of China is to repress opium by heavy taxation everywhere, whereas with England the manifest object is to make opium cheaper, and thus increase and stimulate the demand in China.” Li recognised that the crux of the issue was the importance of opium for the revenue of India, and thus indirectly of Britain. He contended that China did not tax opium because of the revenue it produced, but “the present import duty on opium was established, not from choice, but because China submitted to the adverse decision of arms. The war must be considered as China's standing protest against legalising such a revenue. A Shanghai paper did not believe the letter was composed by Viceroy Li. It stated: "It bears the impression of foreign --- we had almost written missionary penmanship throughout.” It was perhaps the product of one of the Viceroy's advisers trained in a missionary school, such as Wu T’ing-fang (Ng Choy) or Chan Lai-sun. Whoever wrote it, it went out under Li's name and must have represented his opinions. The letter became the subject of a question in Parliament to the Secretary of State for India as to whether the Indian Government was taking any steps to review Britain's position on the opium
Baseline (Original)
232 CARL SMITH tal to their people, and it will thus be in their power to cut off the supply altogether by a pecuniary sacrifice, far less than that volun- tarily taken by England in the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies." A number of historians have regarded Li Hung-chang's attitude towards the opium problem as ambiguous. However that may be, he took a strong stand in a letter he addressed to the Anglo-Orien- tal Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade. His statement was couched in a high moral tone. "Opium is a subject of discussion of which England and China can never meet on common ground. China views the whole ques- tion from a moral standpoint; England from a fiscal. England would sustain a source of revenue in India, while China contends for the lives and prosperity of its people. The ruling motive of China is to repress opium by heavy taxation everywhere, whereas with England the manifest object is to make opium cheaper, and thus increase and stimulate the demand in China.” Li recognised that the crux of the issue was the importance of opium for the revenue of India, and thus indirectly of Britain. He contended that China did not tax opium because of the revenue it produced, but “the present import duty on opium was established, not from choice, but because China submitted to the adverse deci- sion of arms. The war must be considered as China's standing protest against legalising such a revenue. A Shanghai paper did not believe the letter was composed by Viceroy Li. It stated: "It bears the impression of foreign --- we had almost written missionary penmanship throughout,” It was perhaps the product of one of the Viceroy's advisers trained in a missionary school, such as Wu T’ing-fang (Ng Choy) or Chan Lai- sun. Whoever wrote it, it went out under Li's name and must have represented his opinions, The letter became the subject of a question in Parliament to the Secretary of State for India as to whether the Indian Government was taking any steps to review Britain's position on the opium
2026-05-13 03:36:01 · Baseline
View content

232

CARL SMITH

tal to their people, and it will thus be in their power to cut off the supply altogether by a pecuniary sacrifice, far less than that volun- tarily taken by England in the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies."

A number of historians have regarded Li Hung-chang's attitude towards the opium problem as ambiguous. However that may be, he took a strong stand in a letter he addressed to the Anglo-Orien- tal Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade.

His statement was couched in a high moral tone.

"Opium is a subject of discussion of which England and China can never meet on common ground. China views the whole ques- tion from a moral standpoint; England from a fiscal. England would sustain a source of revenue in India, while China contends for the lives and prosperity of its people. The ruling motive of China is to repress opium by heavy taxation everywhere, whereas with England the manifest object is to make opium cheaper, and thus increase and stimulate the demand in China.”

Li recognised that the crux of the issue was the importance of opium for the revenue of India, and thus indirectly of Britain. He contended that China did not tax opium because of the revenue it produced, but “the present import duty on opium was established, not from choice, but because China submitted to the adverse deci- sion of arms. The war must be considered as China's standing protest against legalising such a revenue.

A Shanghai paper did not believe the letter was composed by Viceroy Li. It stated: "It bears the impression of foreign --- we had almost written missionary penmanship throughout,” It was perhaps the product of one of the Viceroy's advisers trained in a missionary school, such as Wu T’ing-fang (Ng Choy) or Chan Lai- sun. Whoever wrote it, it went out under Li's name and must have represented his opinions,

The letter became the subject of a question in Parliament to the Secretary of State for India as to whether the Indian Government was taking any steps to review Britain's position on the opium

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.