I have lately received a despatch and telegrams from His Majesty's consul- general at Canton, stating that the sudden enforcement of certain of the new regulations for the control of the opium trade by the Opium Prohibition Bureau, involving the arrest and imprisonment of a Canton dealer and a purchaser of raw opium, had caused a cessation of imports of Indian opium into Canton and a serious decline in prices in Hong Kong. Mr. Fox informs me that the bureau proposed to levy a new additional tax of 13 taels on each ball of raw opium, and a further 4 mace per tael weight on the ball when prepared, and that he has reminded the acting Viceroy that the levy of such a tax on foreign opium would be a violation of treaty provisions.
It appears, therefore, that the methods adopted by the Opium Prohibition Bureau of Canton are not in accordance with the terms of your Highness' note of the 22nd April, for they not only affect the foreign drug by imposing a heavy additional tax thereon in contravention of treaty, but they also cause a complete dislocation of the foreign opium trade at Hong Kong and Canton.
The arrangement concluded between our two Governments provides for a gradual extinction of the opium trade, and I have the honour to repeat that in so far as foreign opium is concerned there is no necessity for the severe measures taken by the Opium Prohibition Bureau at Canton, which inflict grave injury on British merchants conducting a still legitimate trade under treaty provisions. In notes of the 14th January and the 22nd April your Highness gave me clearly to understand that the Chinese Government have no intention of interfering with the wholesale trade in foreign opium, and I shall be greatly obliged if your Highness will move the viceroy of Kuantung by telegraph to put a stop to the vexations and illegal proceedings lately instituted by the Opium Prohibition Bureau of Canton.
I avail, &c.
0.0.
776. 20184
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[37772]
No. 1.
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received October 12.)
TRECE
¡REGE 3 NOV 09
[October 12.]
SECTION 2.
Sir,
India Office, October 11, 1909. I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to reply to your letter of the 7th October, 1909, on the subject of a parliamentary question put down by Mr. Laidlaw, M.P., regarding the action of the acting British consul-general at Canton.
I am to say that if Secretary Sir Edward Grey is satisfied that treaty rights have been violated, Lord Morley has no objection to the proposed terms of reply. But I am to point out that the ground taken by the acting consul-general and by Sir John Jordan was that the action of the Canton Opium Bureau contravened the explicit assurances of the Chinese Government, and to suggest for Sir Edward Grey's "con- sideration the draft of an alternative reply.
I am, &c.
R. RITCHIE.
J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Alternative Draft Reply to Parliamentary Question suggested by India Office.
I HAVE received a report stating that a representation was made by the acting British consul-general at Canton, pointing out that the arrest and imprisonment of a Canton dealer of the wholesale trade by the Opium Bureau contravened the assurances given by the Chinese Government that the regulations would not interfere with the opium trade. The consul-general would appear to have acted on his own initiative.
I am not yet aware of the result of these representations.
The action of the acting consul-general at Canton has the approval of the Foreign Office. It does not imply any modification of the attitude of His Majesty's Govern- ment with regard to the progressive reduction of the import of opium.
[2470
M. 21