此为本人在澳门大学的硕士论文：“Conflicts of interest : the opium problem in Guangdong, 1858-1917” （中文译名： 《利益之爭 : 1858-1917年間廣東鴉片問題探析》）
1 Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to study the opium problem in Guangdong Province, China between 1858 and 1917. The period of 1858-1917 is a very special stage of opium trade in China, because from 1858 the opium trade became legal, and after 1917 all the records of opium import disappeared in the reports of the Chinese maritime customs. During this special period there were large amounts of foreign and Chinese native opium legally or illegally coming into Guangdong, which had a profound influence on the society in Guangdong at the time. This thesis will focus on the opium problem in Guangdong during this special period, including the opium import and significance of opium taxation to maritime customs, and several conflicts relating to the opium problem between different interest groups: foreign customs and native customs, the Chinese central government and local government, Chinese opium and foreign opium, and opium smugglers and preventive officers. It is my contention that the study of these conflicts of interest over opium is a key to understanding the social, economic, and political history of modern China.
1.1 Background
Though it is not my purpose to write the history of opium in China, it would be useful to make a brief introduction to general readers. As early as the Tang Dynasty, poppy was carried from Arabia into China. It was in 1589 that China began to impose a tax of 2 tales per picul of opium, which was mainly used for medicine, and the amount of opium imported into China was about 200 chests per year. As opium imports increased, they drew the attention of the central government. In 1729, the central government decreed the first law that it was not legal to conduct the opium trade in China. However, this decree did not work well, and opium coming into China continued to increase, as there were up to 1,000 chests in 1767.[1] In order to get enormous profits, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, English, and other foreigners, began to import more opium into China from the beginning 18th century.[2] Although the Qing government repeatedly decreed that opium trade was illicit, opium could be imported licitly in the name of medicine. In 1796, the Jiaqing Emperor issued a decree to prohibit all the import of opium, no matter as medicine or not, and in 1800, poppy cultivation was also banned in China. However, these decrees did not work well, and increasingly larger amounts of opium continued to be smuggled into China every year. There were about 4,494 chests of opium smuggled into China during the years from 1811 to 1820.[3]
More and more opium was smuggled into China, which led to the silver outflow and upset the economic equilibrium of China and undermined people’s health, so that the Qing government made a stricter rule to prohibit opium in the country in 1839.[4] The Daoguang Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Canton to stop the opium trade and smoking in March 1839. A series of anti-opium measures made the foreign opium merchants lose a lot of money, and at last the Opium War broke out in 1839.[5]
After China’s defeat and signing of several “unequal treaties,” in 1858 China signed the Supplementary Treaty and General Regulations of Trade, which marked the legitimation of opium trade in China, so after paying import duty and other fees foreign opium was allowed to come into China legally. The Supplementary Article of the Chefoo Convention, which was signed in 1885, came into effect in the spring of 1887, together with the implementation of simultaneous duty and lijin[6] of 110 teals per picul on foreign opium at each customs station.[7] This led to the growth of opium imports through customs. In 1906, the Guangxu Emperor promulgated a law that China would once again limit opium imports.[8] Thereafter, China and Britain negotiated several times with each other about opium suppression. At last they reached an agreement on the problem of opium limitation in 1907, which stipulated that from 1908 the importation of opium into China would be reduced by 10% each year, and opium should not be imported into China after 1917.[9] Therefore, during the special period of 1858-1917, it was legal to import foreign opium into China.
1.2 Literature Review
As a whole, scholars mainly focus on the opium problem before the Opium War, but, unfortunately, few of them have showed interests in the study of the opium problem after the Opium War, especially the opium trade and smuggling after the Opium War. Let us now briefly examine what previous scholars have written regarding the opium problem in China after the Opium War.
1) Research before the 1950s:
The pioneer work can be traced to Xia Xie, who pointed out that although the Qing government got a lot of taxes from opium, China had to pay more money to buy opium and it led to silver outflow, and opium smuggling along the coast of Guangdong was the most serious. His book was published in 1865 as Memories of China and the West, Vol. 18.[10] In the late 1890s Li Gui wrote Overview of Opium to study the situation of opium taxation and smuggling from the Opium War to about 1888. What’s more important is that he used a lot of reports and returns of foreign maritime customs to prove that there was a large amount of opium smuggled from Hong Kong into China, and perhaps he is the first scholar to take a quantitative approach as far as I am aware.[11]
Luo Yunyan, an anti-opium specialist, studied the origins of opium into China, the opium trade, its harm to health and to the nation, and opium suppression movements in his 1929 book, Opium Problem in China. He also collected and opened some rare documents about the International Opium Conference.[12] Yu Ende collected and analyzed an enormous amount of primary sources on the opium problem in China in his important work, A History of Changes in China’s Opium Prohibition Laws.[13] Mei Gongren presented the scourge of opium, and narrated the history of opium suppression in China.[14] Although History of China’s Lijin was not a book that focused on the opium problem, Luo Yudong made a further study on the opium lijin in each province in China in the book.[15] Wu Zhaoxin made an analysis on the native opium taxation in his History of the System of Taxation in China, Vol. 2.[16]
The western countries showed a strong interest in the opium problem in China. The British had a debate over whether they should suppress the opium trade and consumption in China. In the 1870s, Frederick Storrs Turner studied opium cultivation in India and China, the opium trade by the East India Company, and the opium suppression movements in China. He held the opinion that although it gave enormous money to the British India government, it did serious harm to Chinese, which brought British into disrepute.[17] In the 1890s, many missionaries in China made investigations about the opium harm to smoker’s health, and tried their best to promote opium suppression movements.[18] The International Opium Commission carried out many investigations on the foreign opium import, native opium planting and opium consumption and its harm in China, and so on, before and after the International Opium Conference in 1909.[19] H. B. Morse proved that the enormous opium import brought lots of money to the Qing government, and pointed out that opium smuggling in Hong Kong and Macau was serious.[20] David Edward Owen studied the Indo-Chinese opium trade from the end of 18th century to the early 20th century, and also proved that opium taxation was very important to the Qing government.[21]
2）Research after the 1950s:
Several comprehensive studies by Chinese scholars can be found in the works of general history of opium in China, in which opium consumption and its scourge, native opium planting, and opium suppression movements were emphasized.[22] However, their works were situated within a rhetorical political context, and their analyses were influenced by the Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought and Chinese nationalism. Carl A. Trocki studied the important role of opium in the foundation for the European colonial structure in Asia from a wider global view. In his opinion, opium damaged the morality of society and politics and opened the capital markets in Asia, and it was the essential factor for the growth of empire. Although his thesis is controversial, he argued that if there had not been an opium trade, there would not have been the empire in his famous Opium, Empire, and the Global Political Economy: A Study of the Asian Opium Trade, 1750-1950.[23]
There are several studies on opium suppression movements. It is well known that opium did harm to China and Chinese people, so many people tried their best to suppress the opium trade, and opium suppression movements tended to the peak in the Late Qing Dynasty. In order to support anti-opium movements and learn historical lessons from them, many scholars showed a strong interest in the history of anti-opium in the Late Qing Dynasty and the early Republican China.[24] There are also more than ten master’s theses on this topic in China between 2002 and 2009.[25] Several of these theses dealt quite narrowly on topics of anti-opium campaigns in specific provinces, and several others dealt with the opium problem and the constitutional reform at the end of Qing Dynasty.
Other studies examined the opium trade and opium taxation. Opium trade was one of the most important parts of Chinese foreign trade, and opium taxation and lijin was one of the main sources of Chinese maritime customs and government revenue, so this topic also attracted several researchers’ attention.[26] Lin Manhong’s “The Opium Taxation in the Late Qing Dynasty” was an early paper that focused on the opium taxation problem in the Late Qing Dynasty and pointed out its importance to the government.[27] Thomas L. Kennedy discussed the use of opium taxes in “Mausers and the Opium Trade: The Hupeh Arsenal, 1895-1911,” and showed that at first 30% of the arsenal revenue came from opium taxes, but when it decreased to only 13%, the arsenal could not produce enough guns and it influenced the development of arsenals in modern China.[28] Professor Tang Xianglong’s The Statistics of the Revenue and Distribution of Modern China Customs: 1861-1901, provided a survey of the amount of the taxes and lijin on opium after the year 1887, but the data in his work were based on the archives of native customs, which are difficult to find now, and the data were very different from those in the archives of foreign customs; furthermore, his work lacked the data of opium before the year 1887, so we can not use his data to analyze the opium problem in Guangdong.[29] Liu Zenghe made a further analysis on the complex relationship between changes of opium taxation and the so called “new deal” of the Late Qing Dynasty in Opium Revenue and the Constitutional Reforms at the End of Qing Dynasty, in which he proved that the opium taxation was the foundation of the new deal of the end of Qing Dynasty, but when the anti-opium movements became stricter and intenser, there was not enough income from opium to support this new policy and it led to its failure.[30]
Lin Manhong is one of the best historians to study the native opium in China.[31] She studied the problem of native opium replacing foreign opium in China, and also analyzed the methods of native opium coming into Guangdong Province in “Chinese Opium Replaced Foreign Opium in the Late Qing Dynasty, 1858-1906”. However, her paper did not make a further study on other opium problems in Guangdong Province for lack of space. He Hanwei made a special study on the consolidated taxation and lijin on native opium during the end of Qing Dynasty.[32]
Several scholars have studied the opium problem from the perspective of local area studies. Because of China’s vast size the problem of opium differed from region to region, and so it is necessary to study the opium problem in different areas. The opium problem in Hong Kong, as a special entrepot, attracted most scholars’ attention, and there are many good studies on opium importation, exportation and consumption, the ‘Hong Kong Blockade’ Problem, and the system of opium monopoly in Hong Kong.[33] There are also several good studies focusing on the opium problem in Sichuan, Yunnan, Fujian, Guizhou, Gansu, Shaanxi, Shanxi and Xinjiang provinces.[34] Perhaps one of the most important scholars who studied the opium problem in Sichuan and Yunnan provinces is Qin Heping, an author of two important books: Opium Problems and Anti-opium Campaign in Yunnan Province, 1840-1940 and Opium Problems and Anti-opium Campaign in Sichuan Province. In these two books, he studied most opium affairs such as poppy cultivation, opium smokers, opium taxes, the relation between opium and secret societies, the anti-opium campaign in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces, where most native opium was produced, and set an example for latter scholars to study the opium problem in different regions.[35]
The opium problem in China did not only contain Chinese own affairs, but also aroused wide concerns from the western countries, for they were the opium suppliers. In order to solve the Hong Kong and Macau blockade affairs relating to the policy of opium taxation in China, Britain, China and Portugal made negotiations with each other many times, and at last they signed the Agreement for the Opium Trade in Hong Kong in September 1886 and the Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Beijing in December 1887 to solve these affairs. Several scholars analyzed the process of diplomatic negotiations in detail.[36] Japanese opium policy in China also attracted many researchers’ attention to such topics as the opium trade, opium harm to China, drug policy and opium smuggling by Japan in China, especially in Taiwan and Northeast China.[37]
Questions of the opium monopoly have also attracted scholars’ attention. The history of the opium monopoly in Hong Kong lasted a long time, starting in the 1840s and ending in the 1940s. Many studies have been carried out on this topic.[38] Scholars such as Wang Hongbin, Liu Zenghe and Ding Xiaojie studied the opium monopoly in several provinces in China.[39] Comparatively speaking, many studies have been done on the problem of opium monopoly in Southeast Asia.[40] Taken together, these studies proved that the opium monopoly brought enormous money to the local governments in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, and it supported the foreign empire’s rule over the colonies.
However, the above mentioned studies do not pay much attention to the opium problem in Guangdong, which has been studied by only several scholars. Zhang Zhiyong studied the actions of anti-opium by Xu Jue, a representative local elite, in Guangdong during the year 1908-1911 in a section of his master’s thesis.[41] Using Works Left by Xu Jue[42] and diplomatic archives in “The Movement to Ban Opium in the Late Qing Period and the Diplomatic Struggle between China and Great Britain,” Wang Hongbin studied the diplomatic disputes between China and Britain in the anti-opium campaign in Guangdong from 1909 to 1911, and he pointed out that Britain did not intend to give up the opium trade, and they wanted to prolong the legal time of opium trade in China to get more profits through intervening in the anti-opium movements in Guangdong at the time.[43] Chen Li analyzed the amount and value of opium import through the Shantou foreign customs, and proved that opium was the most valuable import goods during the year 1864-1911 by using the foreign customs archives.[44] Du Wenbin studied the laws of anti-opium, the structure of organization of opium suppression, and the diplomatic negotiations relating to anti-opium campaigns in Guangdong during the year 1906-1917.[45]
These above mentioned studies not only take large and comprehensive approaches, but also include several detailed studies. Both approaches provide rich knowledge of the history of the opium problem in modern China. However, more research is still required before we can understand completely the opium history in China, as more and more new primary sources have been discovered and published in recent years. Although there were several studies focusing on Hong Kong, Yunnan, Sichuan and Fujian and some other provinces, the studies on other areas, especially Guangdong, were not good enough because the complex situation of opium was different from one area to another. If we want to make a study of the opium problem for the whole of China, we should firstly study individual local areas one by one, and then make comparative analyses on different regions, and at last summarize and conclude the characteristics of the opium problem in China. The situation of opium in Guangdong before the Opium War has been well studied by scholars, so my thesis will focus on the opium problem in Guangdong during the year 1858-1917.
1.3 Significance and Methodology
From the above literature review, it is clear that few of scholars have showed interests in the study of the opium trade and smuggling, native opium import and consumption in Guangdong after the Opium War. However, even if there is a lack of former scholars’ interest, it is very meaningful to study the opium problem in Guangdong at the time because of the following factors:
1） Opium taxation was one of the most important sources of foreign customs. For example, opium tax and lijin accounted for 64.2% of the Qiongzhou customs revenue in 1888, and opium income made up 62.3% of the Jiangmen customs in 1912. Therefore, it is clear that opium taxation was the mainstay of the maritime customs revenue.
2） There was a fierce competition between the central government and the Guangdong government for opium taxation. Most scholars considered that local government got too much power to be controlled by the central government. However, we can see that the central government still had the absolute power to control the Guangdong government by analysis on their competition for the opium tax. Therefore, it provides a counter-example for the academia to completely study the relation between them.
3） Little poppy cultivation in Guangdong led to import of native opium from other provinces each year. Questions that needed to be further discussed are as follows: How did native opium come into Guangdong? Where was native opium consumed, and by whom? What was the relationship between native opium and foreign opium? Answers to these questions are important to further understanding of the modern economy in Guangdong.
4） Smuggling was always one important way to import opium into GuangdongProvince, and sometimes the amount of smuggling was more than that of “legal opium trade” through maritime customs. After the legitimation of opium trade in China, smuggling became a more serious problem. Perhaps the amount of opium smuggling in Guangdong accounted for 90% of the total opium importation into China. The study for opium smuggling is significant for us to understand the economy at that time.
As discussed in the above section, we can draw a conclusion that the opium problem had a profound influence on the society at that time through the analysis on function of customs taxation system in the Late Qing Dynasty, contradiction between the central government and local government, competition between native opium and foreign opium, contention between opium smuggling and suppression, and so on. Therefore, an analysis of the opium problem is an important key to understanding the history of the economy, society and diplomacy in modern China.
No doubt, the most relevant sources about the opium problem in modern China are the archives of the maritime customs, in which there were systematic records of opium import and export, opium consumption, opium smuggling, and anti-opium campaign, and so on. Therefore, if we can make full use of these archives, we will get the key point to study the opium problem. In order to study the opium problem in Guangdong, the primary sources used in this thesis are mainly as follows:
1) Historical Materials of Chinese Maritime Customs: 1859-1948 (Hereafter: ab. HMCMC), 170 volumes. This set of 170 books collected and reprinted the annual trade reports in 1882-1948, the returns of foreign trade reports in 1859-1948, and all the five decennial reports, and most of these materials are in English. However, unfortunately, they did not include the annual trade reports before the year 1882. Most data on the opium trade in Guangdong in this thesis come from the reports and returns of foreign customs in this HMCMC.
2) The General Economic and Social Situation of Modern Canton Ports: The Collection of the Canton Foreign Customs Reports (Hereafter: ab. YHBG). This work collected and translated most of the Canton Foreign Customs trade reports and decennial reports in 1860-1949, but it did not collect the returns of import and export at the Canton port.
3) There are two useful collections on the Lappa Customs. The first one is Historical Materials of the Lappa Customs (Hereafter: ab. GBSL). This unpublished work collected and translated most of the Lappa Customs trade reports and decennial reports in 1887-1950, and more importantly it also collected some memorandums of the Lappa Customs, which are very rare. The other is The Collection of the Lappa Customs Reports, 1887-1946(Hereafter: ab. GBBG). It collected and translated most Lappa Customs trade reports and decennial reports in 1887-1946, but it did not collect the memorandums. Neither of these two collections included the returns of import and export at the Lappa Customs.
Of course, other primary sources and secondary sources are also necessary. In Materials of the History of Prohibition of Drugs in China, 1729-1949 there were many memorials to the throne, historical works, and old newspapers relating to the opium problem during the year 1728-1949.[46] Memories of the Opium Harm to Modern China was a collection of 157 pieces of primary materials mainly about the opium harm to China from the end of Qing Dynasty to the Republican China.[47] Many historical materials, such as diplomatic documents and newspapers, about opium suppression mainly in 1906-1926 were gathered in Anti-opium Movements and International Opium Conferences from the End of Qing Dynasty to the Beginning of Republic of China.[48] Also, there are some other collections related to the opium problem, such as All the Documents of the Prohibition of the Drugs in China, The Selected Works of Early Hong Kong History, and Materials of the History of Agriculture in Modern China, but they only have few materials about the opium problem in modern Guangdong, so they are less important than the archives of maritime customs.[49]
Based on the above primary sources and secondary analyses, this thesis will firstly make a statistical analysis of the opium imports and opium taxation and lijin and attempt to make sure all the statistics are well-grounded, and then summarize the characteristics of the opium problem in Guangdong. However, I have to point out that this thesis did not use some materials such as the British Parliamentary Papers because they are so hard to obtain in Macau. The structure of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 1 is the introduction.
Chapter 2 firstly takes statistics of the amount of the foreign opium imports through all the foreign maritime customs in Guangdong, explores the proportion of opium revenue to foreign customs revenue, and points out the importance of opium taxation and lijin.
Chapter 3 discusses the conflict of interest between foreign customs and native customs. The total opium revenue was limited, so if native customs collected more, foreign customs would get less. Therefore, in order to get more money from opium, foreign customs and native customs contested with each other. In this chapter, it takes the relation between the six native customs stations and the Canton Foreign Customs as an example to prove it.
The conflict of interest between the central government and local government is analyzed in Chapter 4. The revenue at foreign customs belonged to the central government, while the income at native customs was mainly used by local government. If the six native customs stations were under the control of foreign customs, the Guangdong government would get less money. In this regard, the central government and local government conflicted with each other over the opium revenue, and unfortunately, the Guangdong government was not strong enough to succeed at last.
Chapter 5 analyzes the amount, taxes, price and consumption of Chinese native opium coming into Guangdong, and finds several ways of native opium coming into Guangdong, and discusses the competition between native opium and foreign opium in Guangdong.
Chapter 6 focuses on the problem of opium smuggling and anti-smuggling. Why and how did people smuggle opium? What was the influence of opium smuggling to opium trade and the society at the time? What did the foreign customs and local government do in order to suppress opium smuggling? These questions inspire this chapter.
At the end of this thesis, chapter 7 draws conclusions from the discussion, and summarizes the characteristics of the opium problem in Guangdong, and points out that it is an important key to understanding the social, economic, and political history of modern China.
[1] Jiang Qiuming and Zhu Qingbao, Zhongguo Jindu Licheng, (1996), pp. 1-12.
[2] Frank Dikötter, Lars Laamann and Zhou Xun, Narcotic Culture: A History of Drugs in China, (2004), pp. 21-23.
[3] Hosea Ballou Morse, Zhonghua Diguo Duiwai Guanxishi, Vol. 1, (1960), p. 240.
[4] Jiang Qiuming and Zhu Qingbao, Zhongguo Jindu Licheng, p. 49.
[5] Jiang Qiuming and Zhu Qingbao, Zhongguo Jindu Licheng, pp. 68-71, and pp. 68-71.
[6] Lijin (釐金), or Likin, was a kind of tax that was collected by local governments in China from 1853-1930. Its rate was 1% at the beginning, but then it increased up to 5% during the region of Emperor Guangxu. There were four main kinds of lijin, including goods lijin, salt lijin, foreign opium lijin and native opium lijin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijin_(taxation), accessed on 2010-05-27.
[7] “Additional Article of the Chefoo Convention,” Wang Tieya ed., Zhongwai Jiu Yuezhang Huibian, Vol. 1, (1957), p. 471.
[8] Wang Tieya ed., Zhongwai Jiu Yuezhang Huibian, Vol. 2, p. 444.
[9] Wang Tieya ed., Zhongwai Jiu Yuezhang Huibian, Vol. 2, pp. 447-448.
[10] Xia Xie, Zhongxi Jishi, (1865).
[11] Li Gui, Yapian Shilue, (ca. 1895).
[12] Luo Yunyan, Zhongguo Yapian Wenti, (1929).
[13] Yu Ende, ed., Zhongguo Jinyan Faling Bianqian Shi, (1934).
[14] Mei Gongren, Wangguo Minzhong de Yapian Yanhuo, (1935).
[15] Luo Yudong, Zhongguo Lijinshi, (1936).
[16] Wu Zhaoxin, Zhongguo Shuizhishi, (1937).
[17] Frederick Storrs Turner, British Opium Policy and Its Results to India and China, (1876).
[18] William Hector Park, Opinions of over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in China, (1899); and Joshua Rowntree, The Opium Habit in the East: A Study of the Evidence Given to the Royal Commission on Opium, 1893-94, (1895).
[19] Arnold Foster, The International Commission for the Investigation of the Opium Trade and the Opium Habit in the Far East, to be Held in Shanghai February 1909: A Warning and an Appeal, (1909); and International Opium Commission, Report of the International Opium Commission, Shanghai, China, February 1 to February 26, 1909, (1909).
[20] Hosea Ballou Morse, Zhonghua Diguo Duiwai Guanxishi, pp. 414-431.
[21] David Edward Owen, British Opium Policy in China and India, (1934).
[22] Zhu Qingbao, Jiang Qiuming and Zhang Shijie, Yapian yu Jindai Zhongguo, (1995); Su Zhiliang, Zhongguo Dupingsh, (1997); Su Zhiliang and Zhao Changqing, eds., Jindu Quanshu, (1998); Wang Hongbin, Jindu Shijian, (1997); and Shao Yong, Zhongguo Jindai Fandushi, (2004).
[23] Carl A. Trocki, Opium, Empire, and the Global Political Economy: A Study of the Asian Opium Trade, 1750-1950, (1999).
[24] Wang Jinxiang, “Qingdai Dierci Jinyan Yundong Tanlue,” (1990), pp. 62-66; Wang Jinxiang, “Nanjing Guomin Zhengfu Chuqi de Jinyan Zhengce,” (1994), pp. 77-83; Wang Jinxiang, “Minguo shiqi de Yapian Shuishou,” (1998), pp. 51-55; Wang Hongbin, “Minguo Chunian Jinyan Yundong Shulun,” (1996), pp. 80-90; Wang Kaixi, “Yapian Zhanzheng qianhou Qing Tongzhi Jituan Jinyan Fangzhen Cuowei Luelun,” (1998), pp. 36-39; Ji Peng, “1927-1935 Nian Guomin Zhengfu Jinyan Shuping,” (2000), pp. 77-81; Wang Yue, “Beijing Zhengfu shiqi de Junfa yu Yandu Fanlan,” (2002), pp. 21-26; and Kathleen L Lodwick proved the hard work to suppress opium by protestant missionaries in China in his Crusaders Against Opium: Protestant Missionaries in China, 1874-1917, (1996).
[25] Zhang Zhiyong, “Qingmo Jinyan Yundong Yan Jiu (1906-1911),” (2002); Peng Tao, “Minguo shiqi Hubei Sheng de Jinyan Yundong,” (2004); Qiao, Xiaoping, “Lun Qingmo Xinzheng shiqi de Jinyan Yundong he Caizheng,” (2004); Huang Zhihong, “Lun Qingmo ‘Xinzheng’ shiqi de Jinyan Yundong,” (2006); Yang Jiguang, “Qingmo Xinzheng Jinyan Yundong de Minzhong Canyu,” (2007); Ma Xiaohui, “Nanjing Guomin Zhengfu shiqi Shanxi de Jinyan Yundong,” (2007); Wang Haichuan, “Kangri Minzhu Genjudi de Jinyan Jindu Douzheng,” (2007); Jia Weikun, “Qingmo Jieyan Yundong Yanjiu,” (2008); Liu Yajun, “Nanjing Guomin Zhengfu ‘Liangnian Jindu, Liunian Jinyan’ Yundong Yanjiu,” (2008); Du Wenbin, “Qingmo Minchu Guangdong Jinyan Chutan, 1906-1917,” (2008); and Wei Qijun, “Minguo shiqi Hunan Jinyan Zhengce Yanjiu,” (2009).
[26] Wu Dunjun, “Jindai Guizhou Jingji de Zhizhu: Yanshui,” (1986), pp. 27-29; Deng Shaohui, “Wanqing Fushui Jiegou de Yanbian,” (1997), pp. 107-108; Wang Jinxiang, “Minguo shiqi de Yapian Shuishou”; and Dai Yi Feng, Jindai Zhongguo Haiguan yu Zhongguo Caizheng, (1993), pp. 149-160.
[27] Lin Manhong, “Wanqing de Yapian Shui,” (1979), pp. 427-479.
[28] Thomas L. Kennedy, “Mausers and the Opium Trade: The Hupeh Arsenal, 1895-1911,” (1979), pp. 113-136.
[29] Tang Xianglong, Zhongguo Jindai Haiguan Shuishou he Fenpei Tongji, 1861-1901, (1992).
[30] Liu Zenghe, Yapian Shuishou yu Qingmo Xinzheng, (2005).
[31] Her three important papers on opium were: “Wanqing de Yapian Shui” (1979); “Qingmo Benguo Yapian zhi Tidai Jinkou Yapian, 1858-1906,” (1980), pp. 385-432; and “Caijing Anwen yu Guomin Jiankang zhijian: Wanqing de Tuchan Yapian Lunyi, 1833-1905,” (1999), pp. 501-549.
[32] He Hanwei, “Qingji Guochan Yapian de Tongjuan yu Tongshui,” (2001), pp. 545-589.
[33] Norman John Miners, “The Hong Kong Government Opium Monopoly, 1914-1941,” (1983), pp. 275-299; Cheung Tsui-ping, “The Opium Monopoly in Hong Kong, 1844-1887,” (1987); Shi Nan, “Luelun Gangying Zhengfu de Yapian Zhuanmai Zhengce, 1844-1941,” (1992), pp. 20-42; W. S. K. Waung, The Controversy: Opium and Sino-British Relations, 1858-1887, (1997); Chen Xinwen, “Fengsuo Xianggang Wenti Yanjiu, 1868-1886,” (2003), pp. 163-185; Elizabeth Sinn, “Preparing Opium for America: Hong Kong and Cultural Consumption in the Chinese Diaspora,” (2005), pp. 16-42; and Tiziana Salvi, “The Last Fifty Years of Legal Opium in Hong Kong, 1893-1943,” (2005).
[34] Papers: Li Longchang, “Luetan Guizhou de Yanhuo,” (1983), pp. 21-26; Kuang Haolin and Ynag Liqiong, “Jindai Woguo Shaoshu Minzu Diqu de Yapian Duhai Wenti,” (1986), pp. 131-142; Wang Jinxiang, “Jindai Shanxi Yanhuo,” (1989), pp. 38-43; Zhang Pengyuan, “Luohou Diqu de Ziben Xingcheng: Yun Gui de Xiexiang yu Yapian,” (1990), pp. 50-74; Wang Gesheng, “Qingdai Dongbei Zhong Yingsu Zhi Yapian Shulun,” (1995), pp. 124-149; Chen Chao, “Wanqing Xinjiang Jinyan Shulun,” (1996), pp. 22-28; Wang Shouen, “Jindai Huabei Nongcun Shehui de Dupin Wenti,” (1998), pp. 89-93; Chu Chenge, “Wanqing shiqi Xibei Difang de Yandu yu Jinzheng,” (2001), pp. 44-49; Niu Yujun, “Jindai Suiyuan Diqu de Yapian Yanhuo,” (2007); and Wu Pengfei and Hou Yongjian, “Yapian zai Qingdai Shanxi de Zhongzhi Fenbu ji dui Nongye Huanjing de Yingxiang,” (2007), pp. 37-46. Books: Joyce A. Madancy, The Troublesome Legacy of Commissioner Lin: The Opium Trade and Opium Suppression in Fujian Province, 1820s to 1920s, (2003); and Timothy Brook and Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, eds., Opium Regimes, China, Britain and Japan, 1839-1952 (2000) is a collection of some papers relating to the opium problem such as taxation, planting and anti-opium in Hong Kong, Tianjin, Fujian, Sichuan, Xijiang, and so on.
[35] Qin Heping, Yunnan Yapian Wenti yu Jinyan Yundong, 1840-1940, (1998); and Qin Heping, Sichuan Yapian Wenti yu Jinyan Yundong, (2001).
[36] W. S. K. Waung, The Controversy: Opium and Sino-British Relations, 1858-1887; Dai Yifeng, “He De yu Aomen: Wanqing shiqi Aomen Minchuan Maoyi de Guanli,” (1995), pp. 83-90; Chen Xiaodong, “Gang Ao Yapian Shuili Bingzheng yu Zhongpu Beijing Tiaoyue,” (2000), pp. 86-89; Kou Wei, “Zhongguo Jindai Haiguan yu 19 Shiji 80 Niandai Zhongpu Xiuyue Tanpan,” (2000); Wang Hongbin, “Qingmo Guangdong Jinyan Yundong yu Zhongying Waijiao Zhengzhi,” (2003), pp. 139-168; Chen Xinwen, “Fengsuo Xianggang Wenti Yanjiu, 1868-1886”; and Xu Suqin, “Wanqing Yue Ao Minchuan Maoyi ji Qi Yingxiang,” (2008), pp. 107-117.
[37] Liu Mingxiu, Tongzhi Taiwan yu Yapian Wenti, (2008); Goichi Yamada, “ALun Benshiji Yiershi Niandai Riben dui Zhongguo Yapian he Mafei Zousi Jigou de Xingcheng,” (1985), pp. 90-96; He Zhongcheng, “Shixi Riben Zhimin Tongzhi shiqi zai Dalian Diqu Tuixing de Yapian Zhengce,” (1995), pp. 13-16; Li Enhan, “Jiuyiba Shibian qianhou Riben dui Dongbei (Wei Manzhouguo) de Duhua Zhengce,” (1996), pp. 269-310; Qi Chunfeng, “Ping Jindai Riben dui Hua Dupin Zousi Huodong,” (2000), pp. 86-90; Cao Dachen, “Riben Qinhua shiqi zai Huanan de Duhua Huodong, 1937-1945,” (2002), pp. 79-85; and Yang Tianliang, “Riben Huazhong Duhua Zhengce de Zhixingzhe: Huazhong Hongji Shantang,” (2002), pp. 40-46.
[38] Norman John Miners, “The Hong Kong Government Opium Monopoly, 1914-1941”; Cheung Tsui-ping, “The Opium Monopoly in Hong Kong, 1844-1887”; and Tiziana Salvi, “The Last Fifty Years of Legal Opium in Hong Kong, 1893-1943”.
[39] Wang Hongbin, “Qingmo Guangdong Jinyan Yundong yu Zhongying Waijiao Zhengzhi”; Ding Xiaojie, “Riben Wei Mengjiang Zhengquan shiqi de Yapian Zhuanmai Zhengce: Yi Zhuanmai Zhidu wei Zhongxin,” (2004), pp. 84-89; Liu Zenghe, “Qingmo Difang Shengfen de Yapian Zhuanmai,” (2006), pp. 63-71; Jiang Qiuming and Zhu Qingbao, Zhongguo Jindu Licheng, pp. 197-198; and Qin Heping, Sichuan Yapian Wenti yu Jinyan Yundong, pp. 121-127.
[40] James Rush, Opium to Java: Revenue Farming and Chinese Enterprise in Colonial Indonesia, 1860-1910, (1990); Carl A. Trocki, “Opium and the Beginnings of Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia,” (2002), pp. 297-314; Shen Yanqing, “19 Shiji Zhaowa Yapian Shuishou Yapian Zhuanmai Chengbaozhi Yanjiu,” (2006), pp. 71-77; Carl A. Trocki, “A Drug on the Market: Opium and the Chinese in Southeast Asia, 1750-1880,” (2009), pp. 266-276; and John Butcher and Howard Dick, eds., The Rise and Fall of Revenue Farming: Business Elites and the Emergence of the Modern State in Southeast Asia, (1993).
[41] Zhang Zhiyong, “Qingmo Jinyan Yundong Yan Jiu (1906-1911),” pp. 112-118.
[42] Xu Jue, Fuan Yiji, (1970, originally published in 1922).
[43] Wang Hongbin, “Qingmo Guangdong Jinyan Yundong yu Zhongying Waijiao Zhengzhi,” (2003), pp. 139-168.
[44] Chen Li, “Qingdai houqi Shantou de Duiwai Maoyi,” (2005), pp. 42-51.
[45] Du Wenbin, “Qingmo Minchu Guangdong Jinyan Chutan, 1906-1917.”
[46] Ma Mozhen, ed., Zhongguo Jindushi Ziliao, 1729-1949, (1998).
[47] Wenshi Jinghua Bianjibu, ed., Jindai Zhongguo Yandu Xiezhen, (1997).
[48] Shanghaishi Jindu Gongzuo Lingdao Bangongshiand Shanghaishi Dang’anguan, eds., Qingmo Minchu de Jinyan Yundong he Wanguo Jinyanhui, (1996).
[49] Li Wenzhi, ed., Zhongguo Jindai Nongyeshi Ziliao, (1957); Yao Xiangao, ed., Zhongguo Jindai Duiwai Maoyishi Ziliao, (1962); Su Zhiliang and Zhao Changqing, eds., Jindu Quanshu; Ma Jinke, ed., Zaoqi Xianggangshi Yanjiu Ziliao Xuanji, (1998); Guangdongshen Dang’anguan, ed., Guangdong Aomen Dang’an Shiliao Xuanbian, (1999); Zhongguo Diyi Lishi Dang’anguan, Aomen Jijinhui and Ji’nan Daxue Guji Yanjiuso, eds., Mingqing shiqi Aomen Wenti Dang’an Wenxian Huibian, (1999); and Shi Zhicheng, Shan’ganning Bianqu Jindu Shiliao, (2008).
全文免费开放下载地址：http://umaclib3.umac.mo/record=b2536990