The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-03 00:00:00

THE OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA.

Last night a public meeting was held at the
Literary Institution,Aldersgate-street, on the subject
of the opium trade with China, and more especially
with respect to the statements of Sir J. Bowring—
Mr. R. N. Fowler in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the question, expressed
his regret at the absence of Mr. S. Gurney, M.P.,
who was to have presided at the meeting, but who
was unavoidably absent in consequence of another
engagement. Mr. Gurney, both on public grounds,
as a member of Parliament, and easia member of a
family who were known to the British public for
their philanthropy, would have added that import-
ance to the subject which he could not hope to impart
to it. The opium trade commenced in the time of
Warren Hastings, and had been promoted by the
East India Company as a financial arrangement
which was beneficial to them. Now, however, that
the government of India was transferred to the
Parliament of England, this country was responsible
for the evils of the opium trade. (Hear.) They
must have seen it stated recently by Sir J. Bowring
that the evils of the opium trade had been greatly
exaggerated, and that it was in fact rather a benefit
than otherwise. They were met on that occasion to
controvert the statements of Sir J. Bowring, and to
show that the fearful evils of the opium trade had
in no respect been exaggerated, and that its con-
tinuance was a disgrace to the country that sanc-
tioned it. (Hear, hear.) He had seen it stated
in the papers that the son of Sir John Bowring
was a partner in one of the largest opium firms in
China. (Hear, hear.) He had not seen that state-
ment denied. The only argument of any weight
in favour of the opium trade was that it pro-
duced a revenue of over £5,000,000, without
which it would be difficult to carry on the govern-
ment of India. But he would appeal to them
whether a consideration of that kind ought to weigh
with them, who paid £20,000,000 to liberate the
slaves of the West Indies. (Hear, hear.) He would not
further trespass on their time, or i anticipate the
facts which would show the pernicious effects of the
opium poison. (Hear.)
The Rev. H. RICHARDS moved the first resolu-
tion, as follows :—" That this meeting, considering
the mass of evidence, from numerous quarters, of
the evil effects of opium-smoking on the Chinese,
and considering that the English are the chief im-
porters of this pernicious drug into China, deeply
regret the misery and vice which they are obliged
to believe are the results of its consumption. They
cannot but regard it as a deep stain upon the
British name, that a nation which ought to be the
pioneer of Christianity in the East should have
forced upon a heathen people an article of consump-
tion which is alike ruinous to body and soul." He
ought to tell them that there was an anti-opium
association in existence, whose ditty it was to in-
vestigate the facts connected with the use of opium.
Now, they believed that the opium drug was most
pernicious,'morally and physically, to the people of
China—that it fettered trade and opposed a bar-
rier to the spread of the gospel. To prove
these facts they adduced the evidence of Sir Stam-
ford Raffles, Sir G. Staunton, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Davis, Major Elliot, Colonel Todd, Capt. Shepherd,
Mr. Martin, Colonel Edwardes, Sir J. Lawrence,
and others. They had besides the medical testi-
mony of Sir B. Brodie, Dr. Bright, Dr. Chambers,
Dr. Fergusson, Sir H. Halford, and Mr. Hawkins,
as to the injurious effects of opium on health. He
had also the testimony of the missionaries to Cnina
of all denominations. All these testimonies con-
curred as to the dreadful effects of opium on the
health, the morals, and the character of the Chinese.
He regretted that Sir John Bowring's name had
been connected with the statements which had
recently been made in regard to the use of opium.
They had no personal feeling towards Sir J. Bow-
ring, but as these statements were made by a person
of his authority, they were bound to refute them.
Mr. Richards then referred to the paper recently
read by Sir J. Bowrieg at the Society of Arts, and
proceeded to controvert the allegations made by
him. The first statement made was that the opium
trade was not prohibited by treaty between the
Governments of Great Britain and China. Now,
it was quite true that the word " opium" was not to
be found in the treaty of the Bth of October, 1842,
but both Governments promised to use their utmost
endeavours to put an end to smuggling. Now, it
was very well known to every one that the smug-
gling alluded to had reference to opium, and they
were not left to conjecture on that point, for Sir H.
Pottinger, Sir John Bowring's predecessor in China,
and the person who drew the article, expressly de-
clared that it related to the article of opium.
(Hear, hear.) Then Sir J. Bowring stated that he
did not find the trade was objected to by the
governors and mandarins of China. Why, seeing
how many lives and how much property they had
lost in the first war for resisting the introduction
of opium, it was no wonder the Chinese should
be chary of expressing their dissatisfaction to Sir
J. Bowring. But, although they might not
have expressed their dissatisfaction to a British
governor, there were ample official documents
at hand to show that the Chinese authorities
were most hostile to the use of opium in their
country. The next statement of Sir J. Bowring
was, that amongst the 600 British resident at Hong-
kong, more died of delirium treniens than amongst
the 90,000 Chinese, from the use of opium. But
they had the authority of Dr. Dempster, his own
medical man, who was ordered to report on the
effects of opium smoking, and his reply was that he
regretted he could give no satisfactory information.
Sir J. Bowring next stated that formerly drunken-
ness was almost universal, but that drunkenness
disappeared since the use of opium. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. Bowring further stated that the use of opium
did not extend to more than two millions. Now he
stated that the population of China was 412,000,000,
so that it appeared the use of opium amongst
2,000,000 eradicated the vice of drunkenness from
412,000,000. (Laughter.) But it appeared that
opium not only eradicated drunkenness, but was a
great help in the spread of the gospel—(laughter)
—for he stated that no converts had been made
in Siam, where opium was not used, whereas
several had been made in China where it was
used. (Laughter.) The first thing then which the
missionary societies ought to do was to lay up a
stock of opium. (Laughter.) Mr. Richards then
read extracts from the reports of missionaries to the
effect that the opium. trade constituted the greatest
barrier to the spread of the gospel in China; He
thought they were entitled to give precedence to
the testimony of the men who were engaged in the
work of evangelisation in China over the statement
of any governor or official. The recent statement
was that the opium trade did not restrict the trade
of this country with China. Now, what was the
fact ? At the end of ten years from the date of the
treaty of 1842, the import of the manufactures of
this country had actually declined. In 1843 the
imports amounted to £1,760,000; in 1854 they
fell off to £1,000,000., and in 1885 they amounted
to only £1,277,000. To what was that falling-off
to be attributed? To the use of opium in China.
And Mr. Consul Mitchell attributed the falling
off to the same circumstance. He had now
gone through Sir J. Bowring's statements,
and he appealed to them if he had not met them
one by one. (Cheers.) But then it was said that
the trade was regulated by the principles of politi-
cal economy. He was a freetrader, but he was not
a freetrader in vice and in iniquity, and it was no-
thing less than a prostitution of the principles of
political economy to make it responsible for crime,
degradation, and sin. (Hear, hear.) Then it was
said that if they did not • carry opium to China
others would. That was the argument used against
the abolition of the slave trade, and it was the argu-
ment always put forward by selfishness to cover
and cloak its own iniquity. He was not insensible
to the financial considerations involved in the ques-
tion, but no argument of that nature should weigh
with them as a Christian nation. (Hear, hear.)
They should not sanction the raising of colossal
fortunes by a few merchants out of the disease, de-
bauchery, and death of a whole people. Let them
rather keep their conscience free from the whole
abominable thing.
Dr. CROFT, who had lived some time in China,
stated that no one who had known the Chinese as
he had could doubt the evil effects of the use of
opium. As a medical man, it was his duty to ob-
serve the pernicious effects of the drug on the
health and morals of the people. He had merely
seen the advertisement calling the meeting in the
papers, and he felt bound in conscience to come
forward and state what he knew. He had met Sir
J. 13owring in China when consul, and he had no
feeling of hostility to that gentleman, but he be-
lieved that Sir J. Bo wring had some crotchets, and
lie supposed they must put down his opinion as to
the harmlessness of opium as one of those crotchets.
(" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
The resolution was then put and carried unani-
mously.
Dr. HODGKIN moved the following resolution :
" That this meeting cannot but express its deep re-
gret at the various attempts made, since his return
to this country, by Sir John Bowring—a gentle-
man whose name was formerly so intimately
associated with objects of philanthropy--to de-
fend the opium trade with China, by statements
as to its effects on the heal h and morals
of the Chinese, as well as on the prosp.xts of
civilisation and Christianity in China, that seem
to be utterly at variance with the testimony of a
large number of disinterested witnesses, who, in
many respects, have had better opportunities than
he has enjoyed for observing its influence upon
both." He was a friend of Sir J. Bowring, and had
known him for many years. It was not, therefore,
from any hostility to Sir J. Bowring that he ap-
peared tnere, or that the resolution was proposed