Despatches from Sir A. Hosie forwarding reports respecting the opium question in China.

  • Hosie, Alexander, Sir, 1853-1925.
Date:
[1911]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Despatches from Sir A. Hosie forwarding reports respecting the opium question in China. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    26/52 (page 24)
    in China, and it must therefore be understood that the figures given are in many cases only approximate and the result of sifting the scraps of information received here and there and the putting of ‘two and two together’ in the minds of the framers of the estimates.” This is more especially true in regard to the estimates of the inland provinces—the greatest opium-producing districts in China—where taxation is irregular and, for the greater part, evaded, and where public or official returns are practically unknown; where, in addition, the percentage of an uncounted population, who locally consume the opium, is a matter of conjecture, the most carefully made computation may be easily converted.” Mr. T‘ang, however, insisted that “no manipulation of figures could alter the fact that more than 600,000 piculs of opium were consumed annually within the Empire up to the year 1900,” instead of the more moderate estimates of Morse and Mr. Leech, and naturally, by increasing the estimate of the total output in 1906, it was easy to magnify the proportionate reduction effected in 1908. As Sir A. llosie said, in his speech at the sixth session of the commission, there was certainly no delegate present who was more in sympathy than he was with the desire and aim of the Government of China to eradicate the cultivation of the poppy and the consumption of opium in China. His remarks were, as he himself said, made in no carping spirit, but were offered to show that we were still much in the dark regarding the actual production, consumption, and reduction of opium in China, and also in the hope that criticism and analysis at that stage might do something to obviate the difficulty and possible controversy which might occur if towards the end of next year the Chinese Government are not in a position to demonstrate with some approach to precision the actual progress that has been effected. It is in the same spirit and with the same intention and, I may add, with the same conviction as to the sincerity of the Chinese Government, and as to the reality of the progress already effected by China, that I reproduce Sir A. Hosie’s criticism of the estimates presented to the commission in the Chinese report. Sir A. Hosie spoke as follows :— “ I come now to the question of opium production in China—a subject which has occupied many minds for many years. At p. 15 of the memorandum presented by the Chinese delegation some estimates for recent vears are given bv Mr. Morse for 1905, Mr. Leech for 1907, the Board of Bevenue for 1906, Customs returns for 1906, and Customs returns for 1908. I eliminate from these Mr. Leech’s estimate, which, with two exceptions, is the same as Mr. Morse’s whereon it was based, and the estimate of the Board of Bevenue, which is admitted to be altogether unsatisfactory and untrust¬ worthy, and has been challenged in an outspoken memorial by the Tartar general stationed at Ning-hsia, in the province of Kansu; and I ask the Chinese delegation when the Customs estimate for 1906 was compiled. Was it compiled in 1907 or at the end of 1908 along with the estimate for that year ? There is, I think, internal evidence to show that the latter was the case, and that both estimates were compiled at one and the same time. For the moment one instance will suffice. At p. 18 the province of Anhui is dealt with. The commissioner of Customs at Wuhu, the only port open to foreign trade in that province, estimates the annual production of Anhui to be not less than 3,000 piculs at the present time, and he states that there has been a reduction in the area under poppy cultivation in some districts of from 50 to 80 per cent. The compilers of the memorandum then say that the estimate is consequently doubled for 1906. Such reasoning, to my mind, is perfectly illogical, for we have been informed that the area or acreage under poppy is an unknown quantity, and a conclusion based on the alleged reduction of an unknown area is of very little value. In other cases the estimate of production in 1908 is deduced by cutting down the estimated production of 1906 by certain percentages. For example, it is stated that the production of Yunnan has been reduced since 1906 by over 50 per cent., and that, as Kueichow is under the same viceroyalty, it is reduced by one-third. Again, although there is no connection between Yunnan and the provinces of Szechuan, Shensi, and Kansu, it is argued that because Yunnan production has been curtailed by one-half, the output of the other three provinces has each been reduced by one-third. It is really unnecessary to take up the time of this commission with multiplying such cases, but it is well to point out that from reductions such as these the conclusion is drawn that there has been a curtailment of production in China to the extent of 37 per cent, in 1908 as compared with 1906. It may be so, and I sincerely hope it is ; but I am afraid that the figures on which such a conclusion is based would not satisfy any western statistical society.”