Royal Commission on Opium

The Royal Opium Commission of 1895 was a commission of the British Government set up to investigate the Anglo-Asian opium trade.

History

Throughout the 19th century opium sent to China was one of British India's most valuable exports. In 1797, Lord Cornwallis set up an official state agency that licensed peasant cultivators to grow poppy, process it, and export it to China via Calcutta.

So valuable had this trade become to British India by the 1830s that its threatened closure by the Qing government caused the British government to send ships and troops to attack Canton and other coastal cities in the First Opium War. The British thereby forcibly prevented the Qing government from effectively ending the smuggling of Indian opium and its illegal sale to Chinese consumers. The Qing government's refusal to legalize the sale of Opium was among the factors that led to the Second Opium War.

As opium trafficking soared, the volume of criticism directed at it grew, especially in Britain. Reformers headed by Evangelicals and Quakers organized, petitioned and put forward Parliamentary resolutions aimed at stopping the trade. Finally, in 1893, under Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone's Liberal government, anti-opium pressures prevailed and Parliament approved the appointment of a Royal Commission on Opium.[1][2]

The Commission was to report on whether India's opium exports to the Far East should be ended and, further, whether poppy growing and consumption of opium in India itself should be prohibited, save for medical purposes. After an extended inquiry the Royal Commission released its report, running to around two thousand pages, in early 1895.[3] The report firmly rejected the claims made by the anti-opiumists in regard to the harm wrought to India by this traffic.[4] Instead, it claimed that opium use in Asia was analogous to alcohol use in Europe, that opium was not harmful to Asians, and that Chinese complaints were based on commercial concerns, not medical evidence.[5] This proved to be an unexpected and devastating blow to the hopes of the anti-opium reformers in Britain. The Commission's conclusions effectively removed the opium question from the British public agenda for another 15 years.[6] A member of the Commission, H.J.Wilson published a Minute of Dissent.[7]

Membership

Queen Victoria appointed nine members to the Royal Commission on Opium.[8] These consisted of seven British and two Indian members headed by Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey, who served as chairman.[9] Those appointed were accomplished, prominent public men who had to have sufficient resources to serve without pay on the commission for a considerable period of time. All those appointed were experienced at sifting through complex issues and coming to reasonable conclusions based on evidence presented to them. The Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade commented in its journal that after attending the early hearing in London, "the commission is as fair-minded and impartial a tribunal as could have desired to hear our case."[10]

Chairman:

Two members actively associated with the government of India were firmly pro-opium:

The two avowedly anti-opium British members included:

The two Indian members were:

The remaining positions were filled by:

See also

References

  1. ↑ Ocampo, J. A., 100 Years of Drug Control, United Nations 2009 ISBN 978-92-1-148245-4, p30
  2. ↑ Buxton, J; The political economy of narcotics: production, consumption and global markets, Zed Books 2006, ISBN 978-1-84277-447-2 p29
  3. ↑ Joshua Rowntree. "The Opium Habit In The East: A Study Of The Evidence Given To The Royal Commission On Opium 1893-4". China, Culture and Society. Adam Matthew Digital. Retrieved 25 November 2014. (subscription required (help)). External link in |work= (help)
  4. ↑ Royal Opium Commission, First Report of the Royal Commission on Opium: with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, Eyre & Spottiswoode for HM Stationery Office, 1895 . The following volumes are available online at the Internet Archive.
  5. ↑ Brook, T and Wakabayashi, B; Opium Regimes: China, Britain and Japan 1839-1952, University of California Press 2000, ISBN 978-0-520-22236-6 p39
  6. ↑ Baumler, Alan (2007). The Chinese and Opium under the Republic: Worse Than Floods and Wild Beasts. State University of New York. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-7914-6953-8. Retrieved 21 August 2011. Although the Royal Commission killed opium suppression as an active political issue for the next fifteen years, the anti-opium crusaders continued their campaign, denouncing the commission as a whitewash and attempting to counter it with data of their own.
  7. ↑ Royal Commission on Opium : minute of dissent ... with his notes, memorandum on the attitude of the authorities in India, and protest against treatment of native commissioners, &c. : with portrait and table of contents / presented by Henry J. Wilson, M.P.. - London : P. S. King & Son, [1895].It was also published as a supplement to Friend of China, available online at the University of Hong Kong Library
  8. ↑ For further details on the appointment of the Commission, see Institute of Historical Research Office-Holders in Modern Britain: Volume 10: Officials of Royal Commissions of Inquiry 1870-1939 (1995) by Elaine Harrison : 'List of commissions and officials: 1890-1899. The Opium Commission is No. 85.
  9. ↑ Lodwick, K; Crusaders against opium: Protestant missionaries in China 1874-1917, University Press of Kentucky 1996, ISBN 978-0-8131-1924-3 p86-87
  10. ↑ Quoted in Dikötter, F; Narcotic Culture: a History of drugs in China, C Hurst & Co. 2004, ISBN 978-1-85065-725-5 p101
  11. ↑ Who Was Who, 1916-1928. A and C Black. 1947. p. 121.Sketch on 2nd Earl Brassey (died 1918).
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.