CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF CHINA.

Grey River Argus, 19 February 1927, Page 8

CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF CHINA.

BRITAIN’S UNFORGIVABLE OPIUM CRIME.

By

H. E. Holland, M.P.

Bort rand Bussell wrote in “Foreign Affairs’’ in 1921: “Japan is more hated in China than any other Power; wo come next, as the allies of Japan, the possessors of Wei-Hai-Wei (the latter in explicit contravention of our Treaty rights), and the aggressors in China’s first wars with modern nations.’’ Ono reason why the Chinese hate the British is to be found in flic unforgiven and unforgiveable crime which Rugland committed against China in the matter of the opium traffic. On January 28 last, at Auckland, several Chinamen were prosecuted and fined in .suras ranging from 50s to £5O for smoking opium; and in fining them the magiirate said: “We are frightened this will spread to Europeans.’’ When I read the report of the case I found myself wondering what wourd have happened if some Chinaman with a knowledge of history and a keen sense of humour had set out to explain the real position to the Court. CONCERNING INDIAN OPIUM.

When Clive captured Bengal in 1758 he found the opium traffic in the hands of a few native chiefs. Opium was being sent, to China, but apparently for medicinal purposes in the maiff. However, the traffic was very profitable, and the East India Company eventually took over tire monopoly, and developed the trade. Soon there were protests, and in 1782 the London directors of the Company condemned the traffic, but they continued to send the opium by indirect sources to China. Warren Hastings laid it down that the traffic was so abominable that the. production of opium for use in India should not .be permitted, but that it should be produced for export only. In 1799 the Chinese Emperor published an Imperial Edict against the use of opium in China, and applied without avail to Britain to bring the traffic to an end. For nearly forty years similar appeals .were unavailingly made, and in 1838 a letter in the same strain was sent to Queen Victoria, who had- come to the throne in the previous year, but it

went unheeded. At this time the annual export of opium from India to China was 34,000 chests; in 1800 it was 2000 chests. THE FIRST OPIUM WAR. In 1839 the Chinese Government sent a Commissioner named Lin to Canton, and he seized and destroyed 20,283 chests of opium. Every enlightened country in the world should have acclaimed Lin’s prompt action; but Britain’s reply was a declaration of war against China. The fighting was spread over two years, during which Hongkong and Canton were captured. Canton, an unarmed city, was bombarded for 27 hours; and Sir Henry Pottinger (British representative in China) has left on record his protest against the “wanton atrocities” committed. He said: “Field pieces.loaded with grape were planted at the end of tong narrow streets thronged with ipon. women, and children, who were mowed down like grass, and the gutters flowed with innocent blood.” TREATY AND INDEMNITY. The Chinese were defeated, and the Treaty of Nanking was completed in 1842. Under its terms yrc compelled China to pay 6,000,000 dollars, alleged cost of the opium destroyed; 12,000,000,000 dollars expenses of the war; 3,000,000 dollars debts alleged to be

due to British merchants by the Hong a company of CHinese merchants; in addition to 6,000,000 dollars for the ransom of Canton.

J. P. Gavit, in his book “Opium,” says the opium destroyed was worth perhaps 2,000,600 dollars. China also copipelled to cede Hong Kong to Britain, while other ports were forcibly opened to pritisli trade. In 1843 Supplementary Treaty was signed up which pledged Britaip to discourage opium smuggling; but this pledge was never kept. On the contrary, Hong kong became a huge opiujn warehouse from which the drug was poured into China. Because the missionaries were mostly ‘British, the Chinese associated opium with the Christian religion. “You foreigners exhort us to virtue,” they said. “First take away your opium, then talk to us about you; Jesus.” The Rev Erie Lewis in his book (“Black Opium”) writes: “Still in ore awful is the collocation, “Jesus Opium” heard at times on Chinese lips, from which very Christian ear will shrink with abhorrence, and which ihere set down with deepest shame and sorrow. ’ ’

THE SECOND AND THIRD OPIUM wAps.

In J 85.6 canie the second Opium War. The “Arrow,” a' smuggler Aying the British f)ag wgs seized by the Chinese authorities, and Lord Palmerston’s Government again declare/ war. A hostile motion was moved in the House of Commons, and Palmerston was defeated by 14 votes. Thereupon he dissolved Parliament, precipitated a gon.eral election, and came back witp a substantial majority—to Britain’s discredit. He continued the war, the Chinese yrerc defeated once more, their fleet was destroyed, and Canton was again captured. The Treaty of Tientsin (1858) compelled, China to legalise the import of opium, and also to open the Treaty ports to the missionaries. By this time the Indian opium exported to China annually amounted to 75,00 Q chests. Further trouble arose through the Chinese refusing to confirm the Treaty formally at Peking, and a third war eventuated, during which the Summer Palace at Peking was destroyed. TJie Chinese were once. again defeated, and another Treaty (1860) was made in which the opening of China to the opium trade was confirmed and proclaimed. It was one of the blackest crimes ever perpetrated by one nation against another.

CHINA’S DESPERATE EFFORTS. ‘ In 1868, when the first decennial revision of the Tientsin Treaty was due,

China re,stated her opposition to the traffic, and again appealed to Britain for its prohibition, but received no reply. In 1877 another Imperial Edict was issued against opium sproking in China, and in 1885 the China Goyern ment sept a Comtnissioner fo Inclig te try apd end the trade, jiut Jie niet yvith no success. The Indian Govcrnpienf was then collecting sopie £4,500,000 annual revenue from the traffic. In the same yegr, China secured the right to grpw opium in her own territory, but the experiment was disastrous. The idoa of her public men seems to have Jreen that it would be better to keep tjie silver in their own country, and further, that if they could check th< import of Yndian opium rhey might eventually be able to end the whole trade! Tn 1891, Sir Joseph Pease ear tied a motion through tKe House of Commons —by 160 votes to 130 —declar ing the Indian opium traffic with China to be morally indefensible. _ In 1895 a Royal Commission (which reported) defended and justified the traffic. By 1906, however, there was a pronounced change in public opinion, and the House of Commons unanimously reaffirmed that tlie traffic was morally indefensible. SPECTACULAR REFORM.

In 1907, the British Government, supported by the Indian Governnient, promised that the Indo-Chinese opium traffic should be reduced by ope-teuth every year, provided that China would move effectively to end t)ie traffic within her own borders. This was to take effect as from January 1, 190§ — the traffic to end ip ten years from that date. To this China readily agreed. The British Geyerninept was supported by a second uuapimous vote of the House of Commons again re-affirming that the traffic tv as ‘ “orally indefensible. Cfiina Wgyed swjitly in carrying out Jier share pf the bargain. In the words of pne wrher, the Chinese /‘epacted the pipst spectacular, most unt>elipvable morpl ref.orpi in history To break the/splvps of the slaver, they ploughed up th.e poppy on a million acres of land, closed up 500,000 opium dens, and old smokers stacked up their pipes in the markets and burned them while women wept tears of poy, and music, banners, and processions eele brated their emancipation.”' At the Shanghai Conference on opium in 1909. convened by the United- States, the rigorous action of 'China in suppression the evil was recognised. CHINA AGAIN BETRAYED. During the 1911-12 revolution, poppycultivation revived in many districts, tut after Sun Yan Sen (first president) came into office, it was soon repressed. So efficiently did China do her part that l\v the end of 1912 the Government of India forbade the export of opium to 'China. Smuggling, however, still went on, and China was clue for yet another great betrayal. Although the export of opium from India to China was officially’ at an end, and its production in China had been made illegal, America and the western world, led by Britin, began shipping morphine into China through Japan. When the late Dr Morrison (British Advjspr to the Chinese Government) came to Wellington in the war period, hp stated, in reply to my questions, that although China had made the traffic illegal, from 30 to 40 tons of morphine were coming into the country annually, that it came through Japan, and a very large portion of it was manufactured in Glasgow by firms whosp principals were prominent members of the Kirk. The British Board of Trade returns show thgt Britain exported 5} tons of morphine to the Far East in 1911; 71 tons in 1912; Di tons in 1912; and 14 tons in 1914 Since the latter year I understand the cjuantity has continued to increase. Sir Francis Aglen (British) /InspectorGeneral of Chinese Maritime Customs—whose dismissal hy the z'eking Government was recently announced—in 192< reported that during the previous th;ee yodrs the Chinese Customs had seized 40 tons of opium, 50ewt of morphia, and nearly 20ewt of cocaine, and fre made the statement that the seizures represented not more than ten per cent of the narcotics smuggled into China.

CHINA AND THE NATIONS. It is to China’s everlasting credit that she led the nations in the crusade against the opium eyil. In contrast with tho others, she undertook to suppress her entire production of opium. In the ease of her Q W B nationals, she even made non-compl;ance with the law a capital offence. No other natiop followed China in forbidding production of the drug; they didn’t, eyen under tpke to reduce their production; all th.ey promised wa s a progressive reductipp of the quantities exported to China. THE OPIUM CONFERENCES. A glance at tjie work of the various International Opium Conferences will bear out their statement of the difference between China’s attitude and that of the other nations. The International Opium Conference Jipld at Shanghai in 1909 (convened by the United States of America) produced no format Treaty, but. its deliberations led to another International Opium Conference at the Hague in 1912. The decisions of this Conference were exceedingly' nebulous, and were remarkable for the manner in which they demonstrated the reluctance of the various Governments to tamper with the status quo. So obscure, indeed, were these . decisions that two further Conferences n'c-re necessary. One of these took ilacQ, in 1913, and the other in June, 1 1914. At the time of tliis latter con- ■ ’crence only eleven nations had ratified ' he 1912 findings—viz., Denmark, Spajn, ■ Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, ■ jnited States of America, Portugal, • Ulina, Sweden, Belgium, and Italy. I Ireat Britain and the Netherlands atified in July, 1014; Nicaragua apd e orway in November, and Brazil in

Doeember (after the outbreak of war) As late as August, 1925, there wer seventeeii States which, had not ye ratified the Hague Convention of 1912— and New Zealand was one of tli seventeen. In February, 1925, tw< International Opium (Conferences wer held at Geneva, when it was agreethat the different nations shomd enac laws or regulations to limit, exclusive ly to jnedical and scientific purpose the manufacture, sale, distribution, ex port and use of narcotics, and, further that the Contracting Parties shoul( take steps to completely prevent tin sniugglipg of opium into China. Thes< decisions notwithstanding the smug gling still goes on and the Chinese leve gieripus charges against the other na tions including Britain ana Russia fa: the manner in which they either encou: age or connive at the breach of the in ternational undertakings. ONE OF THE REASONS. One would naturally expect the high er minds of England shocked by the at titude of the British Governments of the ’forties and ’fifties of last cen tury, and there were public men in the front who did not hesitate to voice their protests in language which is used

in New Zealand under the War Lcgisla tion of 1914-18 would •suost certainly have landed the speakers in prison witli at least one year’s hard labour. For instance, the eminent educationalist, Dr. Arnold, declared that the Opium Wai was ‘‘ so wicked as to be a sin of the greatest possible magnitude.” Lord KI gin made the charge that ‘‘China is strewed all over with the record of ou’ violence and fraud.” And Nr. W. E. Gladstone delivered this pltra'-seditipus and yet withal most righteous pronouncement: ‘‘A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I have not read of. The British, flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic; and if it was never hoisted except as it is now hoistpd on the coast of China we should recoil frojji its sight with horror.’! These are only three among a multitude of similar protests, and, since tr host of thinking Britishers took th" same view as Gladstone did is it any wonder tliat the modern Chinese, awakening from the Jethargy of centuries, should see in this our erinw of the yesterday of history ppp substantial reason apiong many others fpr intensely disliking our people—and more particularly yvheji thpsp of our people they learn to know by direct contact (apart from he missionaries) those who come to Jhinn solely to oppress and exploit the Chinese for the personal profit of a jandful of* industrial capitalists and ’inancigl magnates? The task that lies iefore us is that of repentance and relaration. But, as one clergyman has aid: ‘‘lt is hard to unscramble the ggs. ’ ’ (To be Continued.)