we cannot say. Even as it is, the desire for increased revenue led in some instances to direct effort to promote the use of opium.[1]
Allowing the general philanthropy of the East Indian Government, past and present, the fact remains, that in their dominions they have produced during the last ten years, of which we have official returns, more than half a million of chests of opium, of which only 37,160 were for home consumption, the remainder for export. The question before us is this: Is it morally justifiable that the Government of India should by its direct agency call into existence this prodigious amount of a deleterious article, and pour it over foreign lands to the enrichment of Indian revenue at the cost of ruin to the foreigner? It is a satisfaction to enter upon this inquiry with the assurance of our opponents that if an affirmative answer must be given it will be a "fatal objection" to the present system, "against which no financial arguments could stand."
Putting the case of Sir J. P. Grant into our own words, it may be fairly stated thus:—"Assuming that next year Bengal will produce, and China will buy, 50,000 chests of opium, and that the Indian Government will get a revenue of say £5,000,000 from this trade, it makes no moral difference whether the Indian Government is the direct producer of the opium, or merely raises an export duty upon a trade in private hands. The objection of immorality is merely 'sentimental.' The facts and figures being the same, it makes no difference who are the responsible parties." We need not even stay to inquire "as to the effect, on the whole, of eating and smoking opium in India and China." The opium will be grown, the Chinese will consume it, and the Indian treasury will profit by it. Therefore, to inquire whether the opium is to be produced by Government or by private individuals is idle. There is no moral difference involved: the sole question being which method will bring in most money to the Government."
The argument is, that when evil will be done, it matters not who is the doer of it. It is the same thing morally, whether the Government permits private persons to carry on a noxious trade, or itself embarks its own capital and energies in that trade. This argument is so monstrous, that even when fortified by the qualification in the minute of H. S. M., that Government must be "sufficiently despotic to effect" a total prohibition of the trade in question, it could only find acceptance with minds predisposed to welcome any argument favouring a foregone conclusion. What
- ↑ Vide Report, East India Finance, 1871 (5097), quoted below in "Indian Opium Revenue," page 14.
