It seems surprising that Sir C.Clementi believes it
possible that any such representations could have any
effect, seeing that in our telegram of the 30th June
(No.41.) we told him that "You are of course aware
of the decision of the Indian Government not to
supply any more opium for Macao.
There can be no
question of India making good to your Government the
opium transferred to Macao or supplying opium to
Macao for the purpose of repaying loan or for
carrying on their monopoly."
Further, the Governor of Hong Kong seems
totally to have misunderstood the nature of the
decision of the Government of India, which is that the
total exports from India to all consuming Governments
is subject to the 10 per cent. annual reduction.
If this decision is maintained (and there seems no likelihood whatever of it not being maintained),
supplies to Macao could only be permitted by reducing
pro tanto the supplies to the other Far Eastern
Governments.
In these circumstances, the certain
prospect of another shortage at the end of this month
opens rather alarming possibilities of the Governor of
Hong Kong attempting to carry the Macao opium
monopoly on his back almost indefinitely, and this can
clearly not be permitted. Apart from this aspect,
however, the main question is clearly for the Foreign
Office, the India Office, and Sir Malcolm Delevingne.
It is a matter of some urgency, but I have ascertained
that Sir Malcolm has not gone on leave as he had
hoped, and will be here for a few more days.
? Proceed as in d.d.h.
ہ
7. Pastin
16.8.27.
52.
2
F.O. 10/0.51)
17/9 4107854
53
20
Si M. Delevingne (H.D.)
އ
[~/o, 51 +52)
17 AUG 1927
20
2.0.
(w/c 51 +52) Lab in