}
Sir,
8
Enclosure 13 in No. 1.
Messrs. D. and Messrs. E. D. Sassoon and Co. to Mr. Thomson.
Hong Kong, September 3, 1910. WE have the honour to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your two letters dated the 2nd instant, with the enclosures mentioned therein.
In reply to the second paragraph of your letter, we may state that altogether thirteen chests of opium were shipped to MM. Sales et Cie. between the 2nd and 29th ultimo, and we understand that, with the exception of a very small portion, all the opium has been sold by them in Canton, and has gone into the interior without the payment of the new tax. From latest information to hand how. ever, it appears that on Wednesday last ten balls of opium bought from this firm were seized by the Kwang Un General Office outside Shameen, and we understand that the matter was at once reported to the French consul, who has lodged a strong protest and demanded the release of the opium. We have no information yet as to the result of the protest.
We have, &c.
DAVID SASSOON AND CO. (Limited), (R. H. JOSEPH, Manager). E. D. SASSOON AND Co.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Gore:
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[37147]
No. 1.
703072
RECO
REGE 28 OCT 10
286
[October 13.]
SECTION 1.
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received October 18.)
India Office, October 12, 1910. Sir,
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of Sir F. Campbell's letter of the 24th September,. 1910, asking for his observations on a letter from Messrs. Sassoon regarding the continued enforcement of the new opium regulations at Canton.
In reply, I am to observe that Messrs. Sassoon and Co. fail to realise that in so dubious à matter as the maintenance of the Indian opium trade in Chinese territories, the amount of pressure which His Majesty's Government may be disposed to exercise upon the Chinese Government is limited. That Government is believed to be animated by a genuine desire to extinguish the consumption of the drug, and though the methods which it allows subordinate authorities to adopt may be reprehensible as inconsistent with treaty obligation, and on this score may be open to strong protest, His Majesty's representatives cannot entirely overlook the nature of the traffic they are asked to defend, and have to shape their representations accordingly.
So far as Viscount Morley can form an opinion on the reports made by Mr. Max Müller of his treatment of the Canton regulations, there would seem to have been no lack of firmness or insistency on his part. As regards the allegation regarding the attitude of Mr. Jamieson, His Majesty's consul-general at Canton, Viscount Morley will be glad to learn in due course the conclusions at which Sir Edward Grey may arrive.
The only definite suggestion made by Messrs. Sassoon is that the Chinese Government should be threatened with the withdrawal of the British Government from the additional article to the Chefoo Convention. Mr. Max Müller has already advised that this step might not be unwelcome to the Chinese Government, and might be more injurious to the trade than the regulations against which Messrs. Sassoon complain.
As negotiations with the Chinese Government seem to be reaching a more promising stage, Lord Morley is not disposed to advise resort to the measure suggested.
I am,
&c. R. RITCHITE.
ου
[2957 n-
n-1]