beneficial. It is obviously desirable that a drug used as a medium of injurious. intoxication should be e made e as difficult of procurement as is consistent with its necessary employment as a useful medicine. And in respect to commercial economy, it has been found that the amount of revenue derived by the Company from the monopoly is inversely as the quantity sold; in fact, that 4,000, chests of opium yield a larger produce than 5,000 chests. Mr. Crawfurd, in his account of the Indian archipelago, proves the moral effect of an enhanced: price by very decisive facts. He states that, in the opium sales under his authority at J Java, when the retail price was about 5,000 Sp. dollars per chest (as it was on the British taking possession of the island), the whole consumption was only 30 chests a-year; when the price fell to about 4,000 dollars, the sales rose to about 50 chests; and when the price finally sunk to 3,500, the consumption advanced to nearly 100. chests. When the price was moderate, many had recourse to the drug who never used it before; when it was extravagantly high, many who had before used it moderately, desisted altogether." Our monopoly of the opium trade, and cultivation of the poppy, seems to, have been coeval with the establishment of British influence in Bengal. For a considerable period the emoluments were engrossed, as of right, by certain officers of the government. In the year 1773, shortly before the British opium trade with China began, the Company took the monopoly out of the hands of their officers, and farmed it, or let it out upon contract, for their own benefit. It continued under the direction of the Calcutta Board of Revenue, and afterwards under that of the Board of Trade, till the year 1797, when, upon the expiration of the contracts, the cultivation of the plant, which had been heretofore limited to the provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orixa, was restricted to Bahar (Patna) and Benares, and suppressed in the districts of Rungpore, Purneah, and Baugulpore, where it had been grown for ages. At this period, the price of opium averaged only 414,15 sicca rupees per chest. It was generally adulterated, and but little esteemed in the foreign market. The existing system of agency was then resorted to; and under the regulations of 1799, 1807, and subsequent years, the cultivation of the poppy, except on account of government, is absolutely prohibited. The agency system, which took place under the administration of Lord Teignmouth, has been extremely advantageous to the trade in this article." Its cultivation was confined to districts most adapted to its growth; its purity was ensured by strict examination; and the confidence of exporter and consumer became, in a few years, so complete, that " a chest of opium, bearing the Company's marks, passed among the Malays and Chinese, like a Bank note, unexamined and unquestioned."* In Malwa, and other districts on the western side of India, opium had been cultivated from time immemorial. The article not only had a vent at Bombay (whence the quantity exported in 1810 is represented to have been more than 1,000 chests, and afterwards much larger), but found its way, through various indirect channels, into China and the eastern markets, to the great prejudice of the Bengal sales. The Company attempted to check this trade, by prohibiting the exportation of Malwa opium by sea from Bombay; but it was found that it eluded this regulation by means of the Portuguese settlements of Diu and Demaun, and by clandestine shipments at other ports on that coast. When the Malwa territory came into our possession, by the events of the last Mahratta Tucker, p. 63. Mahratta war, the Indian government, influenced by a desire to possess itself. of this trade, as well as by a consideration of justice towards the landholders of Malwa interested in the production of opium, determined, in 1820, to depart from their system of circumscribing the produce of this article, and accordingly established agencies in Malwa, made large advances for its cultivation there, paid high prices for the drug, and otherwise held out every encouragement to the extension of the manufacture. The quantity produced has consequently increased with great rapidity. The following statement of the quantity of Malwa opium brought into the Indian market, I copy from the newspaper before referred to, but its accuracy is not pretended to be unexceptionable: 1821-2. 1822-3. 1823-4. 1824-5. Company's Malwa opium ...Chests 1,500 4,000 4,000 4,200€ Smuggled ditto ...... : ..................................... ditto 1,500 2,700 3,000 3,000* 3,000 6,700 7,000 7,200 Meanwhile it does not appear, from the following memorandum furnished by Mr. Tucker, that much progress has been made in realizing a revenue from Malwa opium: 1820-1. 1821-2. 33,89,333 1822-3. Gross Receipts of sale.........Curr. Rs. 32,12,500* Advance and Charges ......... ditto 3,23,347 41,99,741 65,60,600* Hence it appears that there is a heavy balance on the wrong side of the account; and although the charge must be regarded in the nature of an outlay, to be reimbursed hereafter, yet I am somewhat alarmed to read Mr. Tucker's statement, that advances are going on upon a large scale (exceeding more than six times the amount paid for the whole produce of Bengal opium), and that the proceeds of the sales of Malwa opium will (he apprehends) do little more than reimburse the cost of the article, whilst they will affect, in a very material degree, the sale of our Bengal produce. Connecting this statement with the practical exposition afforded by the news from Canton, there seems just ground for fearing that the experiment, in a pecuniary point of view, has proved unsuccessful; and that the landholders of Malwa must submit to the same interference with the free use of their property as the landholders of Rungpore, Purneah, and Baugulpore, who had much stronger claims upon the government. The history of the British opium trade with China (in which the Company do not directly participate, as the drug is nominally contraband at Canton) may be despatched in a few words. Previous to the year 1780, this branch of traffic was exclusively in the hands of the Portuguese at Macao. In that year the English contrived to dispose of a small quantity, and they established a sort of dépôt in a bay to the southward of Macao, where they were for years subjected to annoyance, from both Portuguese and Chinese. At length they ventured, in 1794, to send a vessel laden with about 200 chests of the drug to Whampoa, where she was suffered to remain without molestation. The traffic, thus established, has continued ever since, with only trifling interruptions, until the year 1821, when an imperial edict from Pekin, proscribing, under severe penalties, this commodity, as a poison, extremely hurtful to men's hearts and to public morals," occasioned the confiscation of the cargoes of two or three country ships, and the degradation of a Hong merchant. The trade has, however, recovered its usual serenity; and although a prohibited commodity, opium may be obtained in China without any other inconvenience, probably, than enhancement of price ore o reilansiac) 8:1:8 97 5, 92134 There is one point of view in which the system of monopoly in this article is, like others, disadvantageous: it lets foreign competitors into the trade, and encourages production elsewhere. The enormous profit attending the sale of opium * has occasioned the introduction and cultivation of the poppy at the Philippine Islands, a very favourable situation for the establishment of a mart; and it appears that the supply of Turkey opium at Canton by the Americans is increasing, f: This circumstance may have one good effect, that of preventing the enormous fluctuation in the price of the article, which must be attended, occasionally, with heavy losses to the merchant. The price of Patna opium at Canton, in 1816, was about 1,400 dollars per chest; in 1818 it fell to 800; in 1822 ât advanced to 2,400; and in the beginning of last September, the highest price was 960. It appears, from the letter I have prefixed to my remarks, that Patna opium has since, suddenly, from the cause assigned, got up to 1,140 dollars. It may gratify curiosity to exhibit the average prices of Bengal opium at the auction sales in Calcutta (which are two in each year, in the months of December and February or March) in various years: In 1797, previous to the establishment of the present system, its price, as before stated, was 414 rupees. In 1801, it fetched 738; in 1803, 1,124; in 1804, 1,437; in 1810, 1,589; in 1811, 1,639; in 1814, 1,813; in 1815, 2,361 ; in 1816, 2,135; in 1817, 1,925; in 1818, 2,176; in 1819, 1,783; in 1820, 2,056; in 1821, 2,485; and in 1822, 4,248. In the latter year only 2,646 chests and 399, half-chests were sold, instead of about 4,000, which was the quantity in the two preceding years. The large revenue derived by the Company from this source, may be seen by the following account of the opium sales of Calcutta in the years 1818, 1819, and 1820: 1818. Amount sales of Bengal opium .........S.R. 63,43,265 Mr. Crawfurd states the natural cost of a chest of Bengal opium, which contains two factory maunds (1493 lbs.), to be about 112 sicca rupees. This is, however, far below the true calculation at present. Comparing the aforegoing account with the number of chests sold in each year, the average prime cost per chest is 221 sicca rupees. The produce of Bengal opium was limited to 4,500 chests; but since the extension of the cultivation to Malwa, the Bengal government, according to Mr. Tucker, have stimulated the growth of the poppy in the districts, under that presidency, and have even appointed the collectors of the land revenue to act as sub-agents, granting them a per centage upon any increase which may be made in the produce! This course is diametrically opposed to the system hitherto pursued with respect to this peculiar branch of trade. The aforegoing details will probably not be uninteresting to those of your readers whose attention is alive to whatsoever concerns the trade and finances of our eastern empire. June 8th. I am, Sir, &c. R. It is computed, that in some of the eastern islands, the consumer of opium pays about 1,000 per cent. upon the original cost of the article. ALLEGED ALLEGED LITERARY IMPOSITION OF M. TYCHSEN. 990 9780 Jenn and elsewhe elsewhere, The DR. FRÆHN, of St. Petersburgh, has concluded, in the last published number of the Journal Asiatique of Paris, a very elaborate critical examination of an Arabic coin of Abdul-Malik and Heddjadj, published by the late O. G. Tychsen, a celebrated oriental scholar, who has distinguished himself by his efforts to expound the meaning of the inscriptions in the cuneiform, or arrowhead character, found among the ruins of Persepolis result of this investigation tends to fix upon M. Tychsen the charge of having forged the coin in question, for some object which is not apparent; or at least of being privy to the fact that the coin was false at the time he published it to the world, and commented upon it as if its genuineness was undisputed. Deceptions of this nature are so easily practised, and the consequences they lead to are so pernicious to the unsuspecting student, that the world owes no slight obligation to the individual who possesses the means, and is willing to incur the toil and odium, of detecting them; and it is the bounden duty of every person, according to his opportunities and ability, to circulate the fact, and hold up to deserved opprobrium the name of the author of the fraud, vided the charge be well established. After an analytical examination of the inscriptions on the coin or medal, Dr. Fræhn remarks, that the errors observable therein, both with h respect to the writing and the orthography of the Arabic language, would be sufficient to condemn it; and as a mistake in an edition of Elmacin, namely, instead of And, has been transferred to this piece, it is evident that the forger wished to produce a coin like that described by Elmacin. But he alleges other considerations, which tend not merely to substantiate the fact of the forgery, but to excite a strong suspicion, at least, that M. Tychsen either was the forger, or knew it to be forged. In the first place, observes Dr. Fræhn, there appears somewhat strange in the mysterious manner in which M.Tychsen speaks, in his Loisirs Butzowiens, of the person who communicated to him this coin. It is not apparent that there could be any necessity to preserve secresy in an affair of this kind, if there were no dishonest motives. M. Tychsen assigns, it is true, as a pretext for his silence, the errors made by several scholars in explaining the piece; but this could be no reason for concealing the name of the person from whom he received it. The state of things was apparently changed when he afterwards declared, in his Introduction, that it was the Count of Holstein,* minister of the King of Denmark, who transmitted it to him for explanation. But, what is still more strange, M. Tychsen, in his Loisirs Butzowiens, speaks of the base alloy of this piece, and the beauty of its impression, which would lead us naturally to suppose that he had the piece in his hands'; whereas, on the contrary, in his Introduction, he pretends that he had only an impression of it, very badly executed, in isinglass. How are these assertions to be reconciled? Moreover, how can the difference be explained which exists between his first interpretation and that which he has since given in his Introduction? What he at first read 82, as it appears in fact in the engraving, he subsequently read * It would be worth while to ascertain whether the Count of Holstein was living in 1794, when this Introduction appeared.-Dr. F. read 72 or 75; at the lower part of the obverse of the piece he fancied he saw , hou; in the second explanation he leaves this out of the question altogether; but he finds, in the upper part of the reverse, the word, kol; of which the plate exhibits not the smallest trace. This difference of reading is inexplicable; for if, as he asserts, the impression was extremely beautiful, it must have been very distinct. Again: where are we to find upon this medal the different dates assigned to it by M. Tychsen, either in his first or second reading? Let us, however, ppose that it bears that of 72 (A.H.); but then this coin would contradict every Arabian author, amongst whom Tabary ranks with the highest; for, according ng to them, the first Arabian money, with the Musulman type, was not struck till the year 75 or 76 of the Hegira. If this had been struck in 72, it ought to have borne the type of Chosroes, which was employed at that period. If we are willing to admit that the year is 75, it is impossible to account for finding the name of Heddjadj upon a coin struck at Damascus ; since this general, according to Elmacin and Aboulfeda, had been despatched into Arabia before the year 72, and was nominated emir of Hedjaz in 74; he remained in that capacity till 75, when he obtained the emirship of the two Iraks and of Khorassan: and as he retained this latter government until his death in 95, it is impossible to conceive why his name should be found upon a coin struck at Damascus in 82, as the plate imports. There is a trite proverb, continues Dr. Fræhn, which says, noscitur ex socio, qui non cognoscitur ex rẻ; and the company in which this piece is found upon the plate referred to, would suffice to raise doubts as to its legitimacy; joined to the reasons alleged against its specific authenticity, this circumstance confirms the judgment passed upon it. In short, there appears something extremely equivocal in respect to all the other pieces represented upon the same pláte. To begin with a Cufic signet; this is certainly a recent imposture. Tychsen, who states he had it in his hand, observes that it was brought from the East by Tavernier; that Dominico Theoli, professor of oriental literature in the Archi-gymnasium della Sapienza at Rome, thought he could read on it بسم -that another person believed the inscription to be Arme الله الرحمن الرحيم يا وليد بن عبد الملك : Walid I., and the inscription should be read thus nian, another Chinese, &c.; whilst it was really the Arabic seal of the Caliph wko, now Walid, son of Abdul-Malik, thou wilt die and wilt render an account! He adds that Elmacin cites this legend as that of the seal بن عبد الملك of this caliph, but that he omits the words But independent of the fact, that the existence of all these legends on the seals of the caliphs reported by Ibn-ul-Amid (Elmacin) is doubtful, the following considerations render the authenticity of this piece very suspicious. The Cufic writing here is not only entirely different from that found upon the coins of the caliph to whom the seal is supposed to have belonged, but there are some strange and extraordinary circumstances connected with it, only analogous to those existing with respect to the medal, whose falsity has been attempted to be proved: a fact which discovers that they have both the same origin. Thein is not here any longer it is or; the word is, contrary to all custom in Cufic writing, united to the inferior ولید line |