페이지 이미지

periodical distribution. Not as a charity, but as the payment of wages at stated times, must the settlements be made, so that the Church may be reminded constantly of its relation to the workers of former years. Enough money ought to be raised by ordinary methods to meet the claims of all the preachers, so that legacies and endowments might be applied to special cases or emergencies, or for those institutions which can never command a universal popular support, such as the colleges, biblical schools, hospitals, and other benevolent enterprises of a local or limited character.

To the younger preachers is this work largely committed. Gratitude demands that those who have laid the foundation shall be invited to the comforts of the shelter. He who has planted a tree has a right, if he lives, to share in its fruits. Our fathers did noble work in the establishment of a prosperous and liberal Methodism, and those to whom the management has been intrusted would be guilty of a great wrong if they allowed the founders to suffer in neglect. We are a family. Surely the stalwart boy, who earns a little more than his bread and clothes, does not begrudge the older invalid sister or decrepit grandsire that portion which is accorded for the honor of the home, as well as of humanity. Good mothers do not estimate by weight or measure the toil and sacrifice cheerfully rendered for their children. Lovers of their race plant for other ages, and we owe to the former as well as to coming generations. One may now receive the good and another the evil things, but soon the order may be reversed. It is a part of prudent stewardship to lay a foundation of good works for the time to come. Besides, this grand possession of Methodism is not the exclusive property of the ministers now in charge. If the present pastor receives a larger stipend than another, his salary is in the nature of a commission more or less profitable as it is successfully administered, but there are other proceeds to be carefully husbanded and judiciously distributed.

Sentiment plays an inferior part in so important an enterprise. An itinerant ministry can be supported only by rigid adherence to system, and similar methods must be employed in behalf of those who have been retired from active service; but to protect those who are conscientiously faithful, unworthy

applicants must be rejected at any time when their lack of merit is clearly proven. Mutual rights are to be respected, and barnacles must not be allowed to sink the ecclesiastical ship. Let not the claimants betray too much anxiety in regard to their estimates, for excessive and ill-founded demands may lead to utter repudiation. Those who have heretofore gone to the battle may now be content to remain on the walls, and raise the shout in Zion. They may be useful still, and happy, as they cheerfully lend a helping hand or speak a hopeful word. To others is assigned the duty of bringing in the spoils. Absorbing cares preoccupy younger minds, and they may seem to be devoid of the sympathy desired or expected, but they dare not depend on spasms of gush for the succor of the declining and helpless. It is our present business, not only to create and preserve a proper sentiment in regard to ministerial support, but also insure a safe and satisfactory adjustment for the future.


[FIRST ARTICLE.] British Opium Policy, and its Results to India and China. By F. S. TURNER, B.A.

London. 1876. The Poppy Plague and England's Crime. By J. F. B. TINGLING, B.A. London.

1876. The Opium Question. By Rev. Arthur E. MOULE, of the Church Missionary

Society, Ningpo. London. 1877. The Opium Trade. By NATHAN ALLEN, M.D. Lowell, Mass. Our Opium Trade with China, and England's Injustice toward the Chinese. By

W. E. ORMEROD. London. The Friend of China. The Organ of the Anglo-Oriental Society for the Sup

pression of the Opium Trade. Vols. I to VI. London. The Chinese Recorder. Foochow and Shanghai. Vols. I to XI. The Middle Kingdom. By S. WELLS WILLIAMS, LL.D. Harper Brothers. The Traffic in and the Use of pium in our own and other Countries. A Docu

ment by the Representative Meeting of the Yearly Meeting of Friends for

New England for 1881-82. Providence. 1882.
Opium-England's Coercive Policy. By Rev. John LIGGINS. New York: Funk &

The Truth about Opium-Smoking. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1882.

I. HISTORY OF THE TRADE. It is not possible to state with certainty when opium was first introduced into China. We know that it was to be found

there as early as the seventeenth century; and there are some who think that the probable date of its introduction is about the eighth or ninth century, at which time China had a very extensive and constant intercourse with Western Asia. The Portuguese were the first among European nations to trade in the drng; but the traffic was of very small proportions, seldom exceeding 200 chests per annum, up to the year 1769. For many years subsequent to that date the maximum annual im. portation was 1,000 chests. It was undoubtedly imported and used · originally as a medicine; but it is possible that the increase in the trade under the Portuguese indicates that the drug had already begun to be used as a stimulant.

It is necessary, in carrying out the purpose of this article, to review the course of the East India Company in its management of the production and sale of opium in India ; and it is in place to notice the fact that, prior to sending the drug to China, the company had assumed the monopoly of the trade in India, and had entered upon a course of great oppression toward the land-holders in Bengal, in compelling them to plant their fields with poppies. The outrageous conduct of the company's representatives in these matters came under the review of Parliament in 1783; and the Committee of the House of Commons in that year stated that “very shocking rumors had gone abroad, and they were aggravated by an opinion universally prevalent that, even in the season immediately following the dreadful famine which swept off one third of the inhabitants of Bengal, several of the poorer farmers were compelled to plow up the fields they had sown with grain in order to plant them with poppies for the benefit of the engrossers of opium. This opinion grew into a strong presumption when it was seen that in the next year the produce of opium (contrary to what might naturally be expected in a year following such a dearth) was nearly doubled.”

Reasons were found in the inconvenience of making remittances to China in bullion at a time when the treasury at Calcutta was very heavily drawn upon for home necessities, and in other circumstances, for monopolizing the opium trade in China. A certain Colonel Watson seems to have the bad preeminence of making the suggestion to the East India Company, in a letter to the Board of Revenue, dated March 29, 1781,

in which he says: “I take the liberty likewise to suggest the expediency of this government now taking the opium trade to China under its own management, and consigning the whole quantity that may be required for that market to the company's supercargoes at Canton.” This proposal was accompanied by an offer of his ship, the “Nonsuch," to take the opium to China. His offer was accepted, and soldiers, cannon, and medical stores supplied by the company. A contract was also made with one Mr. Thornhill, the same year, to take 1,490 chests of opium to the Straits of Malacca and to China, and he sailed in advance of Colonel Watson, with 22 guns (six-pounders) and 100 men. These were nothing less than bold smuggling adventures, deliberately entered into by the government of British India; for said government was then entirely in the hands of the East India Company, the officials at Calcutta receiving their orders from the directors of the company in England.

This smuggling enterprise was, however, very unsuccessful. One of the vessels was seized by the French, and the cargoes which reached China became the source of great embarrassment to the company's supercargoes there, who say to their superiors in Calcutta,“ The importation of opium being strongly prohibited by the Chinese Government, and a business altogether new to us, it was necessary to take our measures with the utmost caution.” They then show how they were obliged, after protracted secret negotiations with two of the hong merchants, to accept the low price of $210 a chest. The Court of Directors in London, very properly, condemned the expedition, saying, “Under any circumstances it is beneath the company to be engaged in such a clandestine trade; we therefore hereby positively prohibit any more opium being sent to China on the company's account." The Governor-General of India at the time was the notorious Warren Hastings, and this opium-smuggling enterprise was under his direction. Among the charges on which he was tried by the House of Commons in 1786 was one on this subject, accusing him of causing a loss of $100,000 to the company; and affirming That every part of this transaction, from the monopoly with which it commenced to the contraband dealing with which it concluded, criminates the said Warren Hastings with willful

disobedience of orders and a continued breach of trust; that every step taken in it was attended with heavy loss to the company, and with a sacrifice of their interest to that of individuals; and that if, finally, a profit had resulted to the company from such a transaction, no profit attending it could compensate for the probable risk to which their trade with China was thereby exposed, or for the certain dishonor and consequent distrust which the East India Company must incur in the eyes of the Chinese Government by being engaged in a low, clandestine traffic prohibited by the laws of the country.

This first stage of British opium monopoly is a dark and damning page in the history of the times. It was “conceived. in sin and born in iniquity;” and it had such a career as might be expected from its origin. It sullied the reputations of all who were connected with it, and brought deep and lasting disgrace to the British name. Would that there had been wisdom and piety enough to see the disgrace, and to atone for it by subsequent righteous dealing! But later years have only intensified the iniquity of earlier times, and shrouded in deeper darkness the historic page.

The records show that the Governor-General, the company's representatives in India, and the Court of Directors in London, all bent their energies to increasing the production and sale of the baleful drug. No questioning as to its destructive effect upon their fellow-men, or as to their moral responsibility for the evils of the traffic, seems to have entered into their counsels. They gloat over the increasing demand with intense satisfaction, and lay their plans for pushing sales in new regions with an earnestness and vigor worthy of a better cause. In 1787 the Governor-General, Hastings, congratulates the company on the success of his plans, as shown by the fact that “the price has progressively risen at the company's sales from year to year, while the quantity has almost doubled, an evident proof that it is either become an article of more general consumption than formerly, or that new markets have been opened for it.”

China was looked to, with increasing interest, as the most inviting field for a large increase in the traffic. The unscrupulous Governor-General proposes to the directors to employ an agent in some suitable port who should be “intrusted to act in concert with the company's supercargoes in China in settling the contract for the annual quantity of opium to be


« 이전계속 »