Fal. No abuse, Hal.
Poins. No abuse!
Fal. No abuse, Ned, in the world; honest Ned, none. I dispraised him before the wicked, that the wicked might not fall in love with him; in which doing, I have done the part of a careful friend, and a true subject. No abuse, Hal; none, Ned, none;—no, boys, none.——King Henry IV., part II.
Scarce a flower that graces the earth, or a tree waving in the forests, has had its character assailed so mercilessly as the poppy. Not one of the simples or compounds of the chemist’s store, even including arsenic and strychnine, has been so strictly interrogated as to the honourable and dishonourable of its intentions. It is matter of surprise that the East India Company has not been obliged, by authority of Act of Parliament, to imprint the decalogue, at least in the Chinese language, upon every cake or ball of opium leaving their stores. Take upon credit all that some men would tell you, and there would not be room for doubt, were the next informant to state that on the arrival of a cargo of opium, at such a port, on such a day,182 the entire population cut each other’s throats, on account of the pestilential miasma diffused by the said cargo. What are really the moral effects of opium-smoking, can best be collected from a statement of facts, the reader drawing his own inferences: they are, at any rate, bad enough without the aid of exaggeration.
At Singapore stands a house of correction, in which, during the month of July, 1847, might be found forty-four Chinese criminals; and of these, thirty-five were opium-smokers—not moderate smokers, but indulgers to excess—not confining themselves to what they could obtain with such money as they could spare from their wages, but in some instances, swallowing or smoking them all up, and in certain instances, even more than their wages.20 The aggregate amount of the monthly wages of seventeen of these men was ￡16 0s. 10d., or individually 18s. 10?d. The monthly consumption of opium of these men amounted in value to ￡20 16s. 3d., or individually to ￡1 4s. 5?d., so that each of these men, in addition to spending all his wages, begged, borrowed, or stole 5s. 7d. monthly, to make up his quantity of opium alone, without reference to any other necessaries. One of these men, who spent ￡1 5s. monthly, and whose wages only reached half of that amount, was asked to explain how it was to be accounted for. Was there not some error in the calculation, or was he deceiving the person to whom the circumstances were being detailed? How was it possible that, with an income of only 12s. 6d., he could spend ￡1 5s.? The answer was a graphic one and much to the point:——“What am I in here for?” Of course, the tenants of a jail can account for such discrepancies in arithmetic. The offences183 for which these persons were confined were such as would stand in a calendar under the rank of vagrants, suspicious characters, persons attempting to steal, and such like—the crimes committed being against property and not persons. This distinction deserves notice, as it will serve as the basis of some future suggestions.
In looking down the column of the table in which the above instances occur, it will be seen that one planter, whose income was twelve shillings and sixpence, expended in opium six times that amount; and another, whose income is not stated, but which would not far exceed the former, expended twelve times that amount in the drug. Occasional instances occur in which, where the income reached twelve shillings and sixpence, the expenditure amounted only to a trifle beyond; and where the income was sixteen shillings and eightpence, the expenditure was only eight shillings and fourpence or ten shillings.
The inspector of the above institution states:184 “During the course of these investigations, I found some opium-smokers, who declared that their wages only equalled the value of the opium consumed, and in the majority of cases but little exceeded their consumption; yea, I found instances, and these not few, where the value of the opium consumed monthly, was more than the whole wages received. The idea then suggested itself to me, that there must be an affinity betwixt opium-smoking and crime; for when once the habit is formed, it cannot be broken off, while the desire increases with the consumption. It must happen that the wages of the individual will at last be inadequate to supply his desire, even supposing that, after a lengthened career of indulgence, he was able to earn the same amount of money as when, strong, vigorous, and unimpaired, he commenced his dissipation. I, therefore, was not at all surprised when I went to the house of correction, to find that three-fourths of the prisoners were opium-smokers.”
An examination of the prisoners in jail in July of the same year, under different sentences, showed that out of fifty-one Chinese prisoners, fifteen only were not opium-smokers. Seventy per cent. were addicted to the vice, each consuming quantities ranging from twelve to one hundred and eighty grains per day. The same jail was again visited, and the prisoners examined a month afterwards, several fresh criminals had entered, others had been enlarged. At this time, there were sixty-nine criminals, and of these only thirty-one were opium-smokers, being only forty-five per cent. against the seventy per cent. of the former visit.
A quantity of criminals from Pinang under sentence of transportation showed, on examination, the following results:—Out of twenty-one criminals, Chinese and Malays, eight did not smoke. The crimes of these men were murder, stabbing with intent to murder, burglary, and larceny. Ten of these men were Chinese, all of whom smoked but one. Of these nine, eight were condemned for offences against property, one only against the person. Of the nine persons out of the twenty-one who were convicted for offences against the person, four did not smoke, three smoked but little. Hence the conclusion is inevitable, that the criminals of the worst degree, or those committing offences against the person, are either not smokers at all, or are so only to a moderate extent. Other statistics show that, for crimes of this character, highway robbery, and burglary, forty to fifty per cent. only indulge in opium; whilst for vagrancy, misdemeanour, and petty larceny, seventy to eighty185 per cent. indulged in the use of the drug, and often to a very extraordinary extent.
Why do we find that those charged with the gravest offences are the least addicted to opium? May it not be that this class of criminal requires a certain ingenuity, an amount of method and calculation, and mental vigour and excitement of the passions, greater than the debased opium-smoker is possessed of, the want of which, therefore, unfits him for carrying out any such enterprise requiring such adjuncts, leaving him only capable of being a criminal on a small scale. It is well known that the Chinese are inveterate gamblers; but it is not in connexion with the pipe, but with the arrack-cup, that this vice is indulged in. The influences of opium are sedative and soothing, those of arrack stimulating and exciting; the latter, therefore, as may be supposed, is the companion of the gambler, rather than the former. There are other phases in which the two vices of opium-smoking and intoxication may be compared. The abuse of ardent spirits leads to crimes against the person; the abuse of opium leads to crimes against property. The victim of ardent spirits commits his crimes while under their influence; the devotee to opium, while under its influence, is at peace with all mankind, and dreams only of his own happiness. The drunkard, when not under the influence of liquor, may be a moral member of society, and often a contrite one; the opium-smoker at that time is often scheming the violation of moral and social laws, which, when effected, makes him a criminal, but enables him to gratify his appetite.21
186
De Quincey compares the two habits, not so much for the purpose of showing the tendency of either of them to crime, but for the proving that opium does not produce intoxication any more than would a rump steak. “The pleasure given by wine is always rapidly mounting, and tending to a crisis, after which as rapidly it declines; that from opium, when once generated, is stationary for eight or ten hours. The first—to borrow a technical distinction from medicine—is a case of acute, the second of chronic pleasure; the one is a flickering flame, the other a steady and equable glow. But the main distinction lies in this, that whereas wine disorders the mental faculties, opium, on the contrary (if taken in a proper manner) introduces amongst them the most exquisite order, legislation, and harmony. Wine robs a man of self-possession; opium sustains and reinforces it. Wine unsettles the judgment, and gives a preternatural brightness and a vivid exaltation to the contempts and the admirations, to the loves and the hatreds of the drinker; opium, on the contrary, communicates serenity and equipoise to all the faculties, active or passive, and with respect to the temper and moral feelings in general, it gives simply that sort of vital warmth which is approved by the judgment, and which would probably always accompany a bodily constitution of primeval or antediluvian health. Wine constantly leads a man to the brink of187 absurdity and extravagance, and beyond a certain point, it is sure to volatize and disperse the intellectual energies; whereas opium always seems to compose what had been agitated, and to concentrate what had been distracted. In short, to sum up all in one word, a man who is inebriated, or tending to inebriation is, and feels that he is in a condition which calls up into supremacy the merely human, too often the brutal part of his nature; but the opium-eater, simply as such, assuming that he is in a normal state of health, feels that the divine part of his nature is paramount, that is, the moral affections are in a state of cloudless serenity, and high over all, the great light of the majestic intellect.”
It is not to be wondered at that the abuse of opium should be a fertile source of poverty, when so much of the wages of many of its votaries are devoted to it. This diseased habit is progressive, and the quantity taken must be daily increased to produce the necessary effects; but the capability of furnishing the means does not keep pace with the desire of consumption. The cooly, who, when strong and vigorous, could earn twenty-five shillings per month, has only to commence opium-smoking, and in two years he will not receive more than two-thirds of that amount, whilst he still smokes his quantity of opium; and as years roll on, he finds that, mainly on account of the vice he has adopted, he can no longer endure the toil that formerly was to him only as child’s play, the amount of excitement having still to be kept up under a decreased income, he has to lessen his expenditure for clothes, and then for food, and lastly, the quantity of opium itself; until worn out, exhausted, and diseased, he finds himself the inmate of a jail or a poorhouse. A sad reflection, truly, but a history repeated over and over again, with but little188 variation, in the lives of thousands of Chinamen and Malays.
Were poverty to be succoured in places where this description of persons most do congregate, as it is at home, thousands would become public burdens; but there the hand of charity has been closed, and the springs of compassion for the poor dried up. In Singapore, it was not until the horrid spectacle of miserable Chinese daily crawling in front of their doors, exposing their loathsome sores and leprous bodies, and polluting the air they breathed; it was not until these wretched beings, without food or friends, and deprived of the power of supporting themselves, laid them down to die in the streets, of disease and starvation, that by the active philanthropy of two or three individuals a shed was erected to keep these paupers out of sight. When the novelty passed away, the philanthropy declined, and the monthly contribution dwindled down to about three pounds, which was the sum total of the public charity of the European residents in behalf of the diseased poor of Singapore. In this shed were to be found two classes of persons, united in the same individuals, the diseased poor. These are the only kind of poor that excite any sympathy in such places, and an examination of the inmates of the shed will give some insight into the propensities of this class. Out of 125 under relief at the time, 70 were opium-smokers and 55 were not (or would not acknowledge it). Of these 70, some before their admission, were reduced to the alternative of Tye or Samshing, or no opium at all. The total consumption of these paupers before their admission amounted to upwards of four pounds (2022 grains) daily, giving an average daily consumption to each smoker of upwards of 28 grains, being nearly the average consumption of the opium-smoker in general, under more favourable189 circumstances. The greatest consumption of any one of these individuals had amounted to 120 grains, but at that rate his finances soon failed him, and he had to be content with one fourth of that amount shortly before he became an invalid. Sixty-two of these men consumed opium to the monthly value of ￡38 7s. 6d., while their aggregate income amounted in the same period to but ￡50 11s. 3d.; or, individually, the value of each man’s monthly consumption of opium was 12s. 4?d., and his income was but 16s. 6d., leaving only about 4s. monthly, or 1s. per week to feed, clothe, and house himself, and in fact, for every other purpose for which money is required. Some of these did not confine themselves to this. Fifteen of them (as will be seen from Table XVI.) consuming all, or more than their income in opium. Surely such men were worthy not only of a pauper hospital, but also of a jail.
These paupers at one time all received even more than the average amount of wages, sufficient to have clothed and fed them and their families, and kept them comfortable, whilst at that time they were dependent on a charity which allowed them to exist on the rice which was supplied to them, and five doits a day or about a shilling per month. Thousands more, not incapacitated so much by disease as to be unable to work and not therefore inmates of the hospital, were no better off, for what they had they spent in chandu.
The Dutch Commissioners report that,190 “the use of opium is so much more dangerous, because a person who is once addicted to it can never leave it off. To satisfy that inclination he will sacrifice everything, his own welfare—the subsistence of his wife and children, and neglect his work. Poverty is the natural consequence, and then it becomes indifferent to him by what means he may content his insatiable desire after opium; so that at last he no longer respects either the property or life of his fellow creature.”
A Chinaman, who himself is a smoker and consumes opium............