3
i
On the 16th December last we had the honour to address His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, on the subject of the steps then being taken in the Kiangnan province to limit the number of hongs and shops dealing in opium, and in his reply to same dated the 14th January last he wrote to us that your Excellency agreed with us that the regulations disclosed a tendency towards monopolising the trade amongst a few Chinese dealers, and that you had addressed a note to the Wai-wu Pu to the effect that British merchants are still entitled to trade in opium, and requested that foreign opium be excluded from the various restrictive measures which the provincial authorities were introducing. In a subsequent letter, under date of 2nd February, he wrote to us that your Excellency informed him that the Wai-wu Pu, in reply, stated definitely, on the authority of the Viceroy of Nanking, that the regulations of which we complained applied solely to the native drug.
We were grateful that through your kind intervention for the protection of British trade these regulations were not enforced.
In May last, however, it came to our knowledge that identical measures were being enforced at Nanking, and on the 14th idem we wrote to Mr. Goffe, His Britannic Majesty's consul there, on the subject, and in his reply to us of the 17th May he informed us that the then Viceroy of Nanking said he had no intention of altering the conditions governing the trade in foreign opium without previous consultation with His Majesty's Government, and that although new regulations were to be put in operation in his province from the beginning of the 6th moon they would only deal with the native drug and would not in any way affect the foreigu opium.
Some further correspondence passed on the subject, and on the 26th June Mr. Goffe wrote to us that he had brought to the Viceroy's notice the complaints we had made to the working of the regulations in force, and that his Excellency admitted the force of our contentions and requested him to see Mr. Hsu, the official in charge of the opium office. On the 29th the consul advised us that he received a note from Mr. Hsu stating that the three hongs were only concerned with native opium.
We may here mention that these three hongs (or Kung bongs) in Nanking, in the absence of competition, were having their own way, not only in dictating their own price when purchasing foreign opium, but also when selling same. They were charging exhorbitant rates which greatly restricted the trade.
Seeing that we were so greatly handicapped, and in view of the fact that the Viceroy admitted our contentions and stated that the new regulations did not affect foreign opium, and relying also on the assurance given by Mr. Hsu that the Kung hongs were concerned in the native article only, we induced our native customers to open a hong at Nanking to deal exclusively in foreign opium, which they did under the name of the Hochuu hong. This hong was allowed to trade without any interference for a couple of weeks, and it was then summarily closed and the manager arrested. This caused a scare amongst the native dealers here, resulting in a demoralisation of the market. We consider the summary closing of this hong a high-handed interference with our trade. In spite of our protests through His Britannic Majesty's consul, the Viceroy emphatically refused to allow the hong to be reopened or the manager liberated.
This action on the part of the native authorities is nothing short of granting a monopoly to the Kung bongs; and we are afraid if it is allowed to continue in force at Nanking other provinces will follow this example, and in every province in China a monopoly in the opium trade will be created, and this is a direct contravention of
of any the existing treaties. It will also mean that we shall be at the such combinations that may be formed.
mercy
and all
We would most respectfully draw your kind attention to our letter of the 25th March to His Britannic Majesty's consul-general at Shanghae, in which we wrote in part" that as long as the Indian Government continues to sell opium, we merchants, who are the purchasers, should have the support of the Home Government in the disposal of our opium in China, and the same freedom should be granted by China to our customers, the native dealers, as any interference with them reacts on ourselves."
It is obvious that if the native purchasers find the outlet for their purchases closed or in any way restricted, they would naturally fail to perform their contracts with us, with the result that we shall have the opium, for which we have paid hard cash to the Indian Government, thrown on our hands. We shall suffer enormous losses, and whom shall we look to for compensation?
We may also here mention that we have been interested in the opium trade for a great many years, and have been trading under certain conditions secured to us by treaties; and before these conditions are allowed to be in any way modified or changed we consider it only fair that we should be given due notice and sufficient time to work off our stocks.
We would therefore request your Excellency's kind intervention in having the flochun hong at Nanking reopened and the manager liberated, and we hope that you will also, in the interests of British trade, ask the Wai-wu Pu to instruct the various provincial authorities to allow the trade in foreign opium to continue on the same lines as heretofore, unrestricted by any interference, and also to bring about an abolition of any rule or regulation tending to give the monopoly of the opium trade to any asso- ciation or associations as has been done at Nanking.
Apologising for the trouble we are giving your Excellency, and thanking you în anticipation, we beg to remain, &c.
DAVID SASSOON AND Co. (Limited).
(No. 19.)
Sir,
L. D. SASSOON AND Co.
S. J. DAVIDILO.
D. E. J. ABRAHAMS.
E. PABANY.
CAWASJU PALLANJU AND Co.
M. NOTARA, SONS, AND Co.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Consul Goffe.
Peking, October 6, 1909. I HAVE received your despatch No. 26 of the 22nd ultimo, enclosing a letter from the leading British opium importers in Shanghac, protesting against the enforcement of certain regulations regarding the sale of raw and prepared opium.
I would ask you to kindly forward the enclosed reply to Messrs. Sassoon. You will gather from it that I have made repeated protests to the Chinese Government against the enforcement of any regulations likely to interfere unduly with the trade of British importers, and have requested that all high provincial authorities be instructed to exclude foreign opium from the operation of any regulations which they may issue in regard to the wholesale trade in opium.
I have already explained to you in my despatch No. 16 of the 13th August the reasons why I do not wish to make a formal protest against the closing of the Ho Chung hong.
Gentlemen,
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
I am, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Sir J. Jordan to Messrs. Sassoon, Nanking,
Peking, October 6, 1909. I HAVE received through His Majesty's consul at Nanking the letter addressed to me by the leading British merchants in Shanghae interested in the opium trade, protesting against the enforcement of certain provincial regulations relative to the sale of raw and prepared opium as constituting, in your opinion, an infringement of treaty rights, and tending to establish a monopoly in the trade.
As you are aware this question has formed the subject of repeated representations on my part to the Chinese Government, and in a letter dated the 27th July Sir Edward Grey informed your London house of the instructions, subsequently approved by His Majesty's Government, which I had sent to the acting British consul-general at Canton, as to the steps which he should take to prevent any interference with the wholesale trade between the British importer and the native purchaser. These instructions have probably been communicated to you by your London or Hong Kong house.
In the early part of last month I learned from Canton that the regulations for the control of the opium trade in that port were again being enforced in such a manner as
113