man. If, then, opium has been a cause of evolution, certain peoples of India—e.g. the Sikhs and Rajputs—who have longest used it should be the most resistant to it—that is, should crave least for excessive indulgence in it; the Chinese should be less resistant, should crave more for it: whereas the Burmese should be least resistant, should crave most for it.
This is exactly what we find to be the actual case. Numerous witnesses, men scientifically trained, who had had the best possible opportunities for observation, declared before the late "Royal Commission on Opium" that they had never or rarely known opium productive of harm among the peoples of India. On the other hand, numerous witnesses, chiefly missionaries or others connected with different religious bodies, asserted that everywhere in India it was productive of great harm. But as regards this conflict of evidence, I do not think that I overstate the case when I say, that in a question of this sort the evidence of one expert should outweigh that of a dozen enthusiasts, especially when to the cause for which the latter are contending they apply the word "sacred," and I am encouraged in this view when I remember how strangely discrepant may be two versions of the same event given by different and opposed bodies of enthusiasts; for instance, the narrative of this or that event in Central Africa as severally related by Protestant and Catholic missionaries when acting in opposition. Moreover, even by the missionaries, opium is said to be injurious chiefly from a "moral" point of view. It is said by them to mentally affect the natives of India and China much as alcohol is said by people of the same type to affect the natives of England.
