production of opium at 54,000 chests a year, and the consequent raising of the area under poppy to the extent needful to ensure the production of that quantity, are in fact due to the competition of Chinese opium, seeing that the motive of the Indian Government for adopting this policy is clearly that of maintaining its opium revenue, whether or not it distinctly recognised the fact of Chinese competition as the chief menace to that revenue.

12. We cannot close without calling your Lordship's attention to some grave objections, even from the Indian point of view, which apply, not merely to the extension of poppy cultivation, but to the whole system of opium production under Government stimulus and management. At the same time we by no means desire to see the cultivation of the poppy thrown open; prohibition (except for medical use), not free trade, is our object :

(a.) The system leads to much oppression on the part of subordinate officials of the Opium Department. Mr. H. J. Wilson's Minute of Dissent, paragraphs 7 to 10, and Notes F. and G., contain conclusive proofs, from the evidence taken by the Royal Commission, of the truth of this statement, which is confirmed by the statement in the Report of the Opium Department for 1893-94, that "native "subordinates worry the cultivators in order to secure

66

perquisites to which they have no right."

(b.) For the sake of profit to the Indian Government, the cultivators have pressure put on them, and are at the same time tempted by Government advances without interest to cultivate the poppy, although other crops would pay them better. The official evidence given before the Commission in 1894, as to the great value of the poppy culture to the ryots, was conclusively disproved by the action. of the Indian Government immediately afterwards in raising its payment for crude opium by 20 per cent. But it is still a constant complaint in the Annual Reports of the Opium Department that other crops compete with the poppy; wheat, oil-seeds, potatoes, garden produce, and sugar cane are named in this connection. (c.) In view of the recent famines, from which the peasant population of India has suffered so terribly, it is surely nothing less than a scandal to find it admitted in the Report of the Opium Department for 1896-97 that "the increased area" of poppy cultivation "was "doubtless largely attributable to the necessitous condition of the cultivators." The Opium Department, on its own showing, did not hesitate to take advantage of the fact that the people were "on the verge of famine," in order to tempt them, by money advances, to sow poppy, and thus meet the demands of the Indian Government for the required quantum of opium production.

(d.) The reports show that much attention is given by the Opium Department to irrigation, liberal advances being made to secure irrigation of poppy fields. This also appears to us to be a crying scandal, that money should be forthcoming for irrigation to produce poison for China, rather than food for the famine-stricken people of India. (e.) Finally, there is the danger of spreading the pernicious habit of opium eating amongst the population of the opium-producing districts; a danger to which the strict rules against retaining opium, and the not infrequent offences against these rules bear witness.

13. In conclusion, we take this opportunity of re-asserting the main ground of our protest against the Indian Government's opium trade with China, its inconsistency with the principle of morality which ought to govern the conduct of a Christian nation. This principle cannot be affected by the question raised in your Lordship's letter, whether China now asks for prohibition-she certainly has often done so in the past-or by that suggested by the majority of the Opium Commission, whether she might obtain opium from some other source. In the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we "cannot understand how any Christian man can say that he is at liberty to take any part whatever in doing a great evil on the ground

66

"that, if he does not do it, it will nevertheless be done by other people." We pray that the British and Indian Governments may speedily be freed from this national sin.

LETTER from the INDIA OFFICE to Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Bart., M.P., No. R. and S. 1307, dated 15th May 1902.

I am directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of a letter, dated 24th April 1902, submitting on behalf of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, and in reply to my letter of the 18th February last, further observations on the policy of the Government of India with regard to the cultivation of the poppy in India, and protesting against the maintenance of the Indian opium trade. The opening paragraphs of the letter re-state the contention of the Society that the Indian Government is under an obligation towards Parliament to reduce the area under poppy cultivation in British India, and to diminish the production. On this subject, I am to say that Lord George Hamilton has nothing to add to the statement made in my former letter that neither the Government of India nor His Majesty's Government, as responsible for the Government of India, is under any pledge to Parliament, which is operative at the present time, that the area under poppy cultivation and the production of opium in India shall be reduced. He maintains that, whatever may have been the case as to a Parliamentary statement prior to the inquiry made by the Royal Commission on Opium, the Report of that Commission, covering, as it did, all the aspects of the Indian opium question, and bringing the facts fully and authoritatively before the Government of the day and before Parliament, created an entirely new situation. Her late Majesty's Government publicly approved and acted upon that Report; their action has never been challenged in Parliament; and under these circumstances, he considers that the Government of India is fully justified in shaping its opium policy, with the assent of His Majesty's Government, in general accordance with the Commission's views and recommendations.

In the Memorial addressed by the Society to the Marquess of Salisbury in December last, the complaint preferred against the Indian Government was that, notwithstanding the House of Commons' resolution of the 30th June 1893, "pressing on the Government of India to continue their policy "of greatly diminishing the cultivation of the poppy and the production and "sale of opium," that Government was steadily increasing the area under opium cultivation. To prevent the possibility of a wrong impression being created by this complaint, my letter of the 18th February made it clear, by a reference to the figures of opium production, that although the area under poppy had been extended of late years in consequence of unfavourable seasons, there had been no corresponding increase in production; but that, on the contrary, the annual provision of export opium had been reduced from 54,000 chests to 48,000 chests. Your present letter describes this reply as being no answer to the argument of the Memorial, and as merely substituting the figures of opium production for those of poppy cultivation. But it seems to Lord George Hamilton that, if there was any importance in the assertion that the area under poppy was being extended, it lay wholly in the inference or suggestion that the production of opium was increasing. And on that ground he thinks that a statement of the fact that the production has not increased, but decreased, is at any rate not without its bearing on the question at issue.

The Society's letter concludes by inviting attention to what the Society considers to be grave objections from the Indian point of view to "the whole

66

or not.'

system of opium production under Government stimulus and management.' These objections are in substance that the opium cultivator is not a free agent, but is compelled to grow opium either by the direct pressure of the Department, or by the inducement of money advances. It is said to be "a scandal" that such advances are even offered in years of drought to needy cultivators, and that they are similarly assisted to build irrigation wells for their poppy cultivation when the money might have been utilised to increase the food of the country. These objections have been often raised and often refuted, and Lord George Hamilton does not propose to examine them at any length. I am, however, to point out that the Opium Commission very carefully inquired into the charge of compulsion, and found that "the cultivators are free, and are perfectly well aware that they are free, to engage to cultivate the poppy As to the money advances made towards the cost of growing an expensive crop like the poppy, the Society condemns a practice which is highly beneficial to the poorer cultivators, who otherwise would borrow from the money lenders at usurious rates. As to the advances made to opium cultivators for the constuction of irrigation wells, it is a known fact that such wells irrigate a much larger area of land than the little patch which the cultivator places under poppy, and that, by thus stimulating the construction of wells, the Opium Department has done valuable service towards the protection of the country from drought, and the increase in its food-supply. It is, moreover, to be remembered that famines in India are caused not so much by the difficulty of bringing food to the affected districts, as by that of securing that the inhabitants shall have the means of purchasing it; and there can be no doubt but that the assistance given to the cultivation of opium, by increasing directly and indirectly the resources of great numbers of peasants, has done much to preserve large districts in India from scarcity and suffering.* Lord George Hamilton is unable to admit that these specific objections which the Society has thought fit to bring forward in its present letter in any way strengthen the case for restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of the poppy in India. He considers that the case substantially rests where the Opium Commission of 1893 left it, and he cannot see that any new arguments have been presented by the Society which affect or impair the findings of the Commission.

I am, &c. (Signed) A. GODLEY.

Enclosure in No. 2.

EXTRACT from REPORT by Sir ANTHONY MACDONNELL referred to above. "Besides the advances made by Government under the Agricultural Loans and the Land Improvements Acts to which reference has now been made, great assistance at this time was given by the operations of the Opium Department. The statistics furnished by the Benares Agency show that advances made for construction and repair of wells during the famine period aggregate about a lakh of rupees and represent an addition of about 37,500 acres to the irrigated area. The other sums paid in advances to poppy cultivators between July and December 1896 amount to no less than Rs. 35,40,000. This very large sum, which represents in effect a vast number of loans made without interest to the cultivating classes, gave most valuable and opportune assistance to a large number of distressed districts. In one of them alone-Rae Bareli-the villagers received in this way loans amounting to almost 2 lakhs of rupees. Later on in the spring of 1897, when the opium was gathered and weighed in, payments were made to the cultivators aggregating over 84 lakhs, and when the accounts were finally closed in October the further payments then made came to about 13 lakhs. Besides these large sums about 34 lakhs were advanced from August to October 1897 on account of the coming crop. The cultivators of these Provinces were thus financed during the scarcity period by the Opium

* See Report of Sir Anthony MacDonnell's Government on the 1896-7 famine in the NorthWestern Provinces and Oudh, page 25 (Extract appended to this letter).

Department to the extent of nearly 1681 lakhs of rupees (equal to over one million sterling at current rates of exchange). Nearly all these transactions took place in distressed districts, as poppy is not grown in the Meerut and Kumaun divisions, which alone escaped the famine.'

No. 3.

LETTER from the SOCIETY FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE OPIUM TRADE to the Right Hon. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, M.P., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for India, dated-London, 7th July 1892.

We beg to acknowledge receipt of the letter of May 15th, signed by Sir Arthur Godley on your Lordship's behalf, in reply to our communication to you of April 24th. We recognise that a correspondence of this character cannot be indefinately prolonged, and we are the less desirous of continuing the present correspondence as we do not find that your Lordship seriously challenges any of the statements on which our memorial was based. We therefore propose but briefly to reply on the three points referred to in your Lordship's letter.

2. What we take to be the main proposition of your Lordship's letter, namely, that the findings of the majority of a Royal Commission on a point which was not even included in the reference to them can set aside solemn Governmental and Parliamentary declarations, appears to us to lie beyond scope of argument; it simply calls for an emphatic but respectful protest on our part.

the

3. The fact that, notwithstanding the increased area of poppy cultivation of which we complained, the production of opium has been less than formerly is obviously the result of those forces of nature against which the Indian Government has found itself powerless; we fail to see how it can justify setting aside the injunction of the House of Commons to continue the policy of greatly diminishing the cultivation of the poppy and the "production and sale of opium.'

4. We are glad to learn that the advances made to the poppy cultivators by the Indian Government for the construction and repair of wells, and for sowing poppy, have been incidentally beneficial to them in time of famine; but this does not seem to us to diminish the scandal that such advances were made, not with the object of relieving distress, or of increasing food crops in India, but solely in order to maintain the supply of a drug to China, the consumption of which is utterly at variance with its well-being.

5. On all these points, therefore, we are well content that the public should judge between us and the Indian Government. For ourselves, we can only maintain, if possible with increased energy, our protest, not only against the extension lately given to the cultivation of the poppy in India, but against the entire trade in opium, for other than its legitimate medical use.

We are, &c.

(Signed) JOSEPH PEASE, President.

MATTHEW DODSWORTH, Treasurer,
JOSEPH G. ALEXANDER, Hon. Secretary.
GEORGE A. WILSON, Secretary.

No. 4.

THE

LETTER from the INDIA OFFICE to the SOCIETY FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE OPIUM TRADE, No. R. and S. 1993, dated 23rd July 1902.

I am directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th July, submitting further remarks on the subject of the cultivation of the poppy in India and the opium trade.

I am,

(Signed)

&c.

A. GODLEY.