[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
OPIUM.
C
CONFIDENTIAL.
23538
Rece
[39296]
REG£18 JU 11.
[October 27.]
SECTION 2.
(No. 175.)
Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.--(Reccived October 27.)
(Telegraphic.) R.
YOUR telegram No. 138 of 24th October: Opium.
Peking, October 27, 1910.
I am preparing a memorandum for presentation to the Chinese Government following generally the lines of the draft reply enclosed in my despatch No. 330, and incorporating modifications and additions of your telegram and of Indian Government's telegram of 15th October.
I have omitted the reference to possible increase of consolidated import duties. This question should in my opinion be treated separately, but should it ? appear not to] endanger speedy conclusion of the negotiations, I shall avail myself of the permission to insert clause stating the willingness of His Majesty's Government to agree to increase on conditions mentioned by you and Indian Government. I make it quite clear that no interference will be allowed by Chinese officer, but I presume he will be able to watch packing and to be present, if he so desires, at sealing of chests by an Indian official.
I state clearly that until date in clause (F) is fixed, unsealed chests must be freely admitted. I consider it probable that Chinese Government may object to condition that decision of British officers as to extent of cultivation must be accepted by them. In that event, Sir A. Hosie suggests that there could be no objection to a Chinese official accompanying our officer.
I would also submit for consideration whether it would be advisable to insert a clause to the effect that, even if in 1917 His Majesty's Government are satisfied that production of opium in China has ceased, their continued adherence to agreement prohibiting importation of Indian opium into China would depend on Chinese Govern- ment continuing prohibition of cultivation and consumption in China. Personally, I am opposed to inclusion of such a clause as affording ground for criticism of our policy by anti-opium faddists, but I think it right to raise question.
[2957 dd--2]
34