[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[54748]
No. 1.
[December 23.]
SECTION 1,
(No. 478.) Sir,
Sir J, Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received December 23.)
Peking, December 5, 1912. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 317 of the 15th ultimo, in which you indicate that my attitude in regard to the action of the Canton authorities in refusing to grant smokers' licences was inconsistent with the view which I appeared to hold in the Nanking case, namely, that the withholding of Buch licences by the local authorities amounted to an infringement of article 7 of the agreement of the 8th May, 1911.
In the
I would beg leave, however, to point out that in the latter case, although the Governor at Nanking treated the question of smokers' licences as on the same footing as that of the compulsory closing of shops, I expressed no such view as that attributed to me. On the contrary, it will be seen from the enclosures in my despatch No. 420 to which you referred, that both in my representations to the Wai-chiao Pu and in my instructions to His Majesty's consul at Nanking I was careful to avoid all mention of smokers' licences in referring to the restrictions against which I protested. Opium Agreement of 1911 His Majesty's Government undertook that the stipulations regarding the wholesale trade in Indian opium should not derogate in any manner from the force of the laws already published or hereafter to be published by the Chinese Government to suppress the smoking of opium and to regulate the retail trade in the drug in general; and although I succeeded in persuading the Chinese Government to adopt an interpretation of this clause which limited provincial interference in respect of the trade in and movement of opium, the Chinese authorities have consistently maintained their right to deal in their own way with the regulation of smoking.
As regards Messrs. Sassoons' statement of the effect of the Presidential order on the subject of opium, you will since have received my despatch No. 436 of the 4th ultimo, enclosing a copy of this order and expressing my views thereon. Messrs. Sassoons' protest appears to be partly based upon an inaccurate translation of the passage to which they take exception, inasmuch as in the original text the expression " forthwith," or at once," applied to the breaking off of the smokers' habit, is balanced, as applied to the cessation of trade by dealers, by an expression signifying "as the circumstances of each case permit."
are
I observe that in the despatch under acknowledgment the instructions issued by the Wai-wu Pu to the provinces limiting the use of "forcible repressive measures alluded to as being treaty provisions." Apart from the fact that, as I pointed out above, the words "forcible measures" are qualified by the words "in respect of the tracte in and movement of foreign or native opium," the subject of smoking being expressly omitted, I feel bound to express my conviction that any attempt to maintain to the present Chinese Government that the instructions in question have the sanctity of treaty provisions would lead us into an indefensible position, We are on strong ground in protesting against interference with the wholesale trade, such as the recent outrageous proceedings at Anking, inasmuch as the agreement expressly arranges for the continuance of the wholesale trade. In protesting against restrictions on the retail trade we are not on quite such strong ground, for we can only appeal to the spirit of the agreement. We can and do appeal to the Wai-wu Pu's instructions as the official interpretation of the agreement, but we cannot, it seems to me, treat them as treaty provisions. The distinction may appear a subtle one, but there is no doubt that it is kept in mind by the central authorities, and it is a commonplace among the writers in the anti-opium press, Chinese and foreign alike, to remind their readers that although Great Britain may have a treaty right to import opium into China she has no right to force the Chinese people to buy it or to smoke it. As long as we are able to confine ourselves to written and spoken protests it is not very material whether we appeal to the text or the spirit of the agreement; but if we are obliged to enforce the rights of British merchants by any measures beyond those of strict diplomacy, the distinction should, I venture to think, be kept in mind. For instance, if the recent Anking case had been one merely of closing retail shops, I should have hesitated a long time before I would have recommended the sending of a British cruiser to the spot.
[2786 -1]
109