ation of slaves as a
"glorious precedent." But the difference between the two cases need not be
pointed out: they must be obvious to all. What the exact remedies proposed
by the opponents of the traffic are, it is difficult to define; for,
united as is their condemnation of the present policy with regard to the
trade, they are by no means as unanimous in suggesting a policy of their
own.

The various objections to the trade were first formulated in Lord
Shaftesbury's memorial to Lord Clarendon in 1855. The challenge thus
thrown down was at once taken up by Sir John Bowring, our Superintendent
of Trade in China, who, as might be expected, knew somewhat more about the
matter than the enthusiastic memorialists at home. He may be taken to have
disproved all the most important allegations contained in that document,
namely, that the trade was exclusively British; that the annual death-rate
from opium rose to the "appalling" figure of more than a million; that the
Chinese were really in earnest about prohibiting the traffic. Some of
these points have been abandoned; others are considered irrelevant to the
question really at issue, which is held to be whether any interference
with the fiscal policy of a foreign state be in itself justifiable--
whether, that is, we are warranted in keeping China to her
treaty-obligations to admit opium at a certain rate. It is quite natural
that they should wish to confine the discussion to this their strongest
point, but we are not disposed to allow that this is the real or only
point at issue; and we will therefore take the main charges levelled
against the opium trade separately, and endeavour to do them full justice.

These are: 1st. Opium is a poison, and _therefore_ opium-smoking as
practised by the Chinese is poisoning the people. 2nd. We are responsible
for the introduction of this habit into China. "We have held the poisoned
chalice," an eloquent Bishop has said, "to the lips of the Chinese and
forced them to drink it." 3rd. We have even forced it upon them, and are
still forcing it. 4th. We hold a monopoly in the manufacture of opium, but
a monopoly is always economically wrong, and the monopoly of a poison is
morally indefensible. 5. This traffic is an insurmountable barrier to the
labours of our missionaries. Let us take them in this order.

1. It is stated that opium in any form is a poison pure and simple, and
has been declared to be so by Act of Parliament: that, moreover, its