Mr. Walpole to Sir P. Currie.-(Received August 2.)
C. 328
14970
RECR
\REGY 21 AUG (6)
India Office, July 29, 1886.
IN the course of the correspondence which has taken place during the last few months relative to the new Opium Agreement with China, three plans for the prevention or diminution of smuggling have been suggested--(1) by Sir R. Hart, to the effect that the tax on the drug in question should be levied at Hong Kong instead of in China;* (2) by Mr. O'Conor, who considered that the carrying trade in opium might, perhaps, be limited to British ships; and (3) by Mr. Lister, who proposed that an export duty should be imposed in India on all packages exported from that country, the proceeds being divided between Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and China.
The first of these schemes has been practically rejected by the decision of Her Majesty's Government that they could not assent to the levy of taxation from the population of Hong Kong for the benefit of the Chinese Government, a result which the adoption of Sir R. Hart's proposals would involve.
From the accompanying papers it will be seen that the Government of India have not under their consideration any scheme for restricting the export of opium from India to ships carrying any particular flag. In these circumstances, the question is narrowed to the last of the schemes referred to above.
It will be observed that the Viceroy in Council does not view with favour any proposals for levying in India an export duty on opium.
In addition to the many and formidable difficulties to which attention is drawn in the papers now forwarded for the Earl of Rosebery's consideration, any arrangement by which one Power is to collect taxation on behalf of another nation is not only opposed to precedent, but in certain contingencies might be productive of grave international complications. Nor, in spite of the apparent interest which the Chinese authorities have recently evinced in the adoption of some plan in the direction indicated, is it altogether free from doubt whether opposition would not arise--as in 1879, when a similar proposal was suggested by Sir T. Wade--in the event of the matter being seriously discussed. Moreover, apart from the objections to the various schemes suggested, the Secretary of State for India in Council concurs entirely in the view expressed by the Government of India and by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking, that it would be premature to enter upon any negotiations involving a change of system until it is seen how far the new Convention can be satisfactorily worked, or, at any rate, until the Hong Kong Commission shall have submitted its Report. It is understood from Sir P. Currie's letter of the 8th instant that Lord Rosebery also is of this opinion, in which case it will rest with his Lordship to make such communication to the Chinese Government as may be advisable if any further communication is considered to be necessary.
I have, &c.
HORACE WALPOLE.
(Signed)
Inclosure 1 in No.
My Lord,
The Governor-General of India in Council to the Earl of Kimberley.
Simla, June 5, 1886.
WE have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatches, noted in the margin,§ on the subject of the opium negotiations with China.
2. With reference to the inquiry made in paragraph 2 of your Lordship's despatch of the 11th February, 1886, we beg to state that we have not under our consideration any scheme for restricting the export of opium from India to ships carrying any particular flag.
3. We forward, however, a copy of correspondence, detailed in the accompanying
*See Confidential Print, 1885, No. 51, pp. 32-35; also 1886, No. 20, pp. 8-10.
+ See Mr. O'Conor's No. 441, Confidential Print, 1885, p. 31.
‡ See Confidential Print, 1885, No. 48, p. 29.
§ Dated the 28th January, 11th February, 25th February, 4th March, and 25th March, 1886, [257]
B