[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, 90
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[40231]
со
34597
[October 13.]
REC?
SECTION 1.
Rea$ 27 OCT II
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received October 13.)
(No. 377.) Sir,
WITH reference to my despatch No. 362 of the 18th instant, enclosing a copy
Peking, September 26, 1911. of a note which I addressed to Prince Ching on the 7th September respecting provincial restrictions imposed on the trade in Indian opium, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of a reply which I received from the Wai-wu Pu on the 16th and of a further note which I addressed to Prince Ch'ing on the 21st instant on the same subject.
With regard to my request for an explicit assurance that all regulations considered necessary for the enforcement of the last paragraph of article 7 of the 1911 agreement shall, in accordance with the terms of that agreement, in future be issued by the Chinese Government and not by provincial authorities, His Highness informs me that such a procedure involves the prerogatives of the Boards of the Interior and of Finance, which it will be necessary to consult before action can be taken on this point, and in my note of the 21st instant, I renewed my request.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir J. Jordan.
(Translation.) Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of
Peking, September 16, 1911. the 9th instant on the subject of opium suppression, in which you state that, although the restrictions at Canton have now been removed, restrictions of various kinds have been and are still being imposed in other provinces, notably in Fukien, Hunan, and Kiangsu. You further enclose copies of regulations and proclamations issued by those provinces, and point out that such regulations, to be valid under the agreement, should be issued by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Government alone. Nor is it seemly that there should be several Government departments dealing with the question in Peking and issuing contradictory instruc- tions. The Wai-wu Pu was, you say, the department which made the agreement, is responsible for its fulfilment, and should alone issue the necessary instructions.
The
My board has the honour to point out to your Excellency that the majority of the Fukien regulations and proclamations were issued before the signature of the opium agreement, and that instructions were long since given for their withdrawal. issue, however, of a proclamation by the commissioner of police in August is a case occurring since the signature of the agreement. Now your Excellency said in your
note :-
"The third of the regulations (published in this proclamation) makes it compulsory for raw opium-shops which purchase foreign opium to take out passes ("san lien tan") from the Opium Eradication Office, and ordains that opium bought without such passes shall be confiscated. This is another breach of the procedure laid down by treaty."
I would call your Excellency's attention to the fact that this clause clearly states that no charge of: any kind will be made for the taking out of these passes, and also that it contains no limitations on their issue. The passes are specially intended as a means of regulating the trade, but confiscation being too heavy a punishment for omission to take out a pass, we have telegraphed to the Viceroy instructing him to modify the regulations.
As to the Hunan smoker's licence tax question, my board replied to your Excellency on the 18th August that the previous proclamation had been annulled and
[2226 n- -1]