This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
C.O.
5174
CHINA TRADE.
Rece
[January 27.]
CONFIDENTIAL.
(Reg 12 FEB 09 1
SECTION 1.
[3507]
No. 1.
(No. 12.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received January 27.)
Peking, January 6, 1909. I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch with inclosures from his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong relative to the action of the Provincial Government at Canton in placing restrictions upon the sale of opium, which formed the subject of my despatches Nos. 464 and 540 of the 21st October and the 3rd December, respectively.
Sir F. Lugard, it will be observed, is inclined to share the view of the Hong Kong opium merchants that the Rules framed for the enforcement of the Opium Edict of the 20th September, 1906, constitute, in some respects, a violation of British Treaty rights, and it becomes necessary, therefore, to examine the question with some
care.
The Hong Kong merchants refer more particularly to Article 5 of the above Rules, which they contend constitutes an infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of the British Treaty of 1842 and Article 14 of the French Treaty of 1858.
I myself have, when combating the attempt to establish an official monopoly of opium at Nanking, quoted the above Treaty provisions as debarring the Chinese from resorting to such a measure, but I have always felt the weakness of our position under the Nanking Treaty, and been prepared, in the event of its being challenged, to fall back npon the French Treaty as our best line of defence.
Opium was a contraband article when the Treaty of Nanking was concluded, and remained so until 1858. Lord Palmerston, in his instructions to Sir H, Pottinger, the negotiator of the Treaty, wrote:-
"His Majesty's Government make no demand in regard to this matter (the The Chinese Govern- legalization of the opium trade) for they have no right to do so, ment is fully entitled to prohibit the importation of opium if it pleases."
Can it, therefore, be reasonably contended that the British Government, in stipu- lating for the abolition of the hong merchants and the freedom of mercantile transactions at the Treaty ports, as they did in the 5th Article of the Treaty of 1842, meant to include transactions in opium, an article which continued to be contraband until 1858, and was then only legalized under special conditions which placed it in a category altogether different from ordinary merchandize ? Such a strained interpretation of the Treaty would scarcely, I fear, be regarded as consistent with a desire on our part to assist China in her efforts to suppress the opium habit, and I have not ventured, pending your instructions, to indorse the views of the Hong Kong opium merchants in the communi- cation which I have made on the subject to the Wai-wu Pu.
But the merchants go further and protest, apparently under Article 10 of the Nanking Treaty, against the Regulations being made applicable to native dealers in the interior.
The Regulations, they say, were withdrawn in the city of Canton, but have been brought into force in other prefectures of the province, and Mr. Fox was requested to make representations to the Viceroy to obtain their withdrawal throughout the whole of the Province of Kuangtung.
Article 10 of the Treaty of Nanking was never applied to opium, for the simple reason that opium was a contraband article then and for many years later. Under clause 5 of the Tariff Rules of 1858, the import of opium was for the first time legalized, but the importer was to sell it only at the port and not to be allowed to accompany
it into the interior. The transit dues on it were to be arranged as the Chinese Government saw fit, and from 1858 to 1885 we never, so far as my knowledge goes, claimed any Treaty right to interfere with opium after it left the port area.
The
In 1885 the Additional Article to the Chefoo Agreement was negotiated, and the opium trade was placed upon the basis on which it has since been conducted. foreign merchant can sell his opium only at the Treaty ports, and it can be taken into the interior by Chinese only under certificates which exempt it from taxation on the way,
[2090 dd-1]
B
362
!