nature has many vicious inclinations, manifesting themselves in various injurious excesses, for the gratification of some of which articles of commerce are required. Is the Government absolutely to prohibit the production, manufacture, and sale of these articles? Many persons say emphatically, yes; more say, no. Those, however, who dispute the wisdom of attempting to stamp out these excesses, by directly prohibiting all supply of the means of them, are for the most part agreed in the desire to put some restraint upon the excesses. One method of putting this restraint is to make the article more costly through taxation. "Wherein lies the difficulty of applying this principle to opium? Whatsoever restrictions upon the cultivation and consumption of opium our Indian Government has hitherto maintained for the sake of the moral welfare of its own subjects may be maintained, after the abolition of the monopoly, in other forms. It is probable that a considerable revenue will accrue to the Government through so doing. That this revenue will equal the present monopoly profit, if a righteous reply be made to the Chinese demands for relief from the oppression they are groaning under, is very unlikely. But, be the revenue less or more, we contend that revenue which incidentally accrues through an honest effort to confine vicious indulgence within narrower limits is attended with no dishonour to the Government accepting it; while revenue arising from the promotion of vice, from a system which directly aims at its increase, is a scandal.
II.
But the actual opium question is rather an international one than a question of internal morals.
In this respect it is not of prime importance whether opium is or is not more injurious to mankind than other stimulants: it is enough that the Chinese nation, upon whom we have forced it, believes it to be so. To them it is the "deadly poison." Sir R. Alcock testifies his belief that their Government would unhesitatingly sacrifice every dollar of the million and a half sterling it derives from the drug we compel them to receive.
Now the morality of the Indian monopoly at home is one thing, the morality of the international relations which have grown out of it is another. In defence of this last, neither Sir J. P. Grant nor any other has ventured even a plausible argument.
By what right do we prevent the Chinese Government from refusing admission altogether to this hated drug?
