Sessional_Paper_1909 — Page 125

33

So much prominence has been given of late to the subject of opium divans, Divans. (or "Dens" as they are called in England), that I think it may be useful to add a few observations on them.

Divans, which must not be confused with opium shops whose rôle is the preparation and sale (or sale only) of opium-are places where opium is sold for smoking on the premises, or where a fee is paid for the privilege of smoking. There is of course no means of preventing persons from preparing and smoking both opium and dross in their own houses if they wish to do so.

In Hongkong there are 190 divans. They are under the control of the Police and Sanitary Department and the Protector of Chinese. A divan consists of a single room which if quite full might accommodate 30 persons at a time. Mr. Clementi estimates the total who smoke in divans as some 14,465 persons which only gives an average for each divan of 76. Therefore if each person remained 3 hours the average occupants would only be 13 or 14 instead of 30, since divans are only open from 6 a.m. to midnight. A personal inspection showed them to be quiet and orderly. The smokers appeared generally to be friends engaged in animated conversation, smoking tobacco, eating fruit and drinking tea with an occasional whiff from the opium pipe. There were none in a state of stupefaction though the visit was between 10 and 11 p.m.

The Colonial Secretary, Mr. May, with 9 years' experience as Head of Police, who had constantly visited the divans at all hours of the day and night, stated that he had never seen a man here the worse for the drug. He himself though very susceptible even to tobacco had smoked many pipes in succession with no result. Dr. Ayres who studied the question for 20 years smoked 3 mnace (174 grains) consecutively, viz., as much as a confirmed smoker would smoke in a day

without feeling any result at all.†

A divan licence in Hongkong costs $10 (1) per annum and is renewable annually, and the place is comparable to our public houses in England, in so far as it affords a resort where the tired coolie may rest and enjoy his tobacco and fruit with a little opium, or where friends of the better classes may meet and discuss affairs, but it contrasts strongly with a Public House in that it is quiet and orderly. Women and children are absolutely excluded.‡

Nature of divans.

Men who have homes of their own will, in the absence of divans, smoke in Alternatives their women's quarters as they are now reported to be doing in Canton. Thus for divans. the evil hitherto excluded from domestic life will be introduced into the home, where women and children will probably become participators. The idea there- fore that smoking at home is less harmful than smoking in a public divan is based on a misconception of the nature of a divan as it exists at any rate in Hongkong. It is true that the criminal classes frequent the divans, because they are often smokers, but they go there for no vicious purpose other than smoking, the place is too open and public for discussing secret plans, and there is no immorality.§

The alternative resort for those with money is the noisy theatre, or the rest- aurant where much money is wasted, and which is more or less associated with the brothel. For the coolie the alternative is the street, or if he desires to smoke and has no home in which to indulge he must pay some rich man's servants for the privilege of smoking with them. It is indeed anticipated that abolition of divans would lead to the introduction of bad characters into the quarters of the Chinese servants of Europeans, and may even extend instead of curtailing the habit. Divans are a concomitant, and result of the habit of opium smoking rather than an inciting cause, and they serve a useful purpose in concentrating smokers, and thus bringing them under control and supervision. They also tend to dim-

*Calculation dated 12-6-08.

+ Indian Opium Commission. Vol. V. p. 193.

Ordinance 8 of 1891. The keeper's wife or child are alone exempted.

§ The Straits Commission support these conclusions very strongly. They hold that public smoking in well ventilated saloons is better for public health than smoking in private houses. They are "unhesitatingly of opinion that it would be a mistake to abolish divans and that there is "no necessity or justification" for doing so. They add some recommendations regarding control and sanitation, but do not advocate any increase in the licence fees which are $24 and $36. (Report § 212 ta §226). Mr. Fox informs me that during a year's residence at the capital of the opium province of Szechuan, he never saw any disturbance in a divan.