The opium controversy.

  • Arbuthnot, Alexander John, 1822-1907.
Date:
1882
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The opium controversy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    10/13 (page 411)
    from the suppression of the opium cultivation; secondly, whether, supposing that sacrifice to be made by India, it would have the desired effect in suppressing, or greatly diminishing, the use of the drug in China. On both these points there is a good deal of informa- tion to be found in the evidence taken by the Parliamentary Com- mittee of 1871. On neither of them does that evidence appear to be such as to justify the measure which the opponents of the opium trade are urging upon the Government. Granted that the effects of the drug, when used to excess, are most lamentable, and are even more prejudicial to health than the excessive use of alcohol—though on this latter point there is much room for difference of opinion—it has certainly not been shown that, as a matter of fact, opium is more injurious to the great body of the Chinese opium-smokers than are spirituous liquors and beer to the great body of those who use stimu- lants in this or any other European country. It is difficult to exag- gerate the amount of poverty and suffering and evil of every kind which is caused in this country by drink; but it has never been seriously proposed to suppress the importation or manufacture of brandy, or gin, or beer, because, when taken in excess, they produce drunkenness, and often lead to crime. And here it may be remarked that the excessive use of opium does not produce those crimes of vio- lence which are the every-day results of drunkenness in England. I have not space to deal at any length with the evidence which has been recorded on this important question of the actual effects of the use of opium upon the Chinese ; but I may briefly draw attention to that given by Mr. Winchester, one of the witnesses examined in 1871. Mr. M inchester had been British Consul at Shanghai, and had resided in China for twenty-six years. He was by no means disposed to mini- mise the mischievous effects of opium. When questioned on this point by Sir 'Wilfrid Lawson, he replied emphatically that he would 1 n°t recommend any man to smoke opium under any circumstances. At the same time he stated that £ while there was a stage of opium- smoking in which unquestionably the effects were very deterio- rating to the physical constitution,’ his impression was that ca certain amount of opium was not so.’ In his opinion ‘ there are two conditions of opium-smoking. There is what you might call the moderate opium-smoking, and there is that stage which I would call opiumismus, as being equivalent to what may be called alcoholismus. He felt sure that a Chinaman might continue to use opium, as we use wine or beer in this country, without ever being induced to use it to excess. He knew ‘ men in China, advanced in life, who had smoked opium all their lives, and who were perfectly competent to all the duties of their position.’ He had seen the Chinese in the Straits Settlements and in California, all of whom smoke opium, and on the whole are ‘ a useful people, and a laborious, diligent population.’ Adverting to the fact that large tracts in China