647
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
C. 30236/27 [No. 21].
Approved by all Members.
130
No. 92.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL OPIUM COMMITTEE.
MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING, HELD AT THE HOME OFFICE, ON THE 31ST OCTOBER, 1927.
Present:
SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE (Home Office), Chairman.
SIR GILBERT GRINDLE (Colonial Office).
MR. S. B. B. McELDERRY (Assistant Colonial Secretary, Govern-
ment of Hong Kong).
MR. J. J. PASKIN (Colonial Office).
MR. W. STRANG (Foreign Office).
MR. M. D. PERRINS (Home Office), Secretary.
SIR G. GRINDLE said that the telegram* which had been received from Hong Kong in reply to a telegramt sent as a result of the decision at the last meeting of the Committee, showed that the position resulting from the breakdown of the system of control had become intolerable, and something must at once be done to alter it. If the law was to be enforced the whole population would be in gaol, and as the Government of the Colony could not be asked to build new gaols, he saw no alternative but to approve their scheme of driving the smuggler out of the market.
At the last meeting it had been noted that the Netherlands East Indies were about to lower the price of opium: he had now heard that the Siamese were considering a similar departure. The Netherlands East Indies and Siam were much better situated than Hong Kong to establish an effective control: if they were forced to lower the price how much more justification was there for such a course in Hong Kong.
SIR M. DELEVINGNE understood that it had been agreed at the last meeting that the position of the Netherlands East Indies and Hong Kong were different. The authorities of the Netherlands East Indies, owing to their more favourable position, had some chance of ousting the smuggler, but Hong Kong had none. SIR G. GRINDLE suggested, on the other hand, that the fact that Hong Kong is so peculiarly situated is really a factor in favour of the experiment, which represents practically the only weapon at the disposal of Hong Kong for combating the smugglers.
MR. MCELDERRY said that it was a question rather of degrec : some of the smugglers in Hong Kong could be knocked out.
The Committee then proceeded to consider the reply of the Government of Hong Kong to the questions that had been put to them.
SIR M. DELEVINGNE found the reply disappointing: the Government of Hong Kong had failed to answer the direct question which had been put to them, namely, what grounds were there for expecting any real improvements in the existing position from the new policy for anticipating that they could drive out the smuggler and when he had been driven out to retain the market if restriction of consumption were attempted. He added, and the Committee agreed, that the Government of Ilong in the Kong had evidently misunderstood the use of the terms "inflated demand Colonial Office telegram of 15th October.†
MR. MCELDERRY expressed it as his own personal opinion that the present diffi- the radical mistake " culties in Hong Kong were very largely due to what he termed made in 1912, the suppression of the divans by legislation, imposed by the Home Government. (MR. PASKIN explained that this had been due to Parliamentary pressure.) As a result, opium smoking was now taking place in holes and corners where it was impossible to control it. The best policy, though one, he admitted, diflicult at first sight to defend, was to permit smoking only in divans under Government control as was done in Siam. This system had the additional advantage of solving the dross problem, as out of each divan the proper proportion of dross would be obtainable for destruction. Persons who did not wish to go to the divan would have to be registerc‹ and licensed: their dross would be similarly obtained. Such a system it was claimed had worked well in Siam and could, he thought, be made the basis upon which ulti- mately to build a system of registration in the Colony.
SIR M. DELEVINGNE said that the British Government were not committed to any particular policy in regard to divans, nor had the First Opium Conference recommended
‡ No. 89.
* No. 91.
+ No. 90.
131
their abolition. In the Opium Agreement of 1925 divans had been treated in the same way as shops, that is to say, the policy recommended was that they should be reduced
in number.
MR. McELDERRY, continuing, pointed out that when he left the Colony the average daily number of prisoners for opium offences was 300. The figure had now risen to 540. The bulk of the convictions could be classified into three categories: (1) the keeping of illicit divans, (2) the smuggling of opium, and (3) the boiling of opium. The greatest number of cases were those connected with illicit divans, then came smuggling cases which in their turn were more in number than the convictions for boiling opium. These three classes of cases were punished with comparatively long periods of imprison- ment. Illicit smoking of opium was punished by small fines or imprisonment for a day or two only. Imprisonment for the illicit keeping of divans was quite ineffective as the Chinese employed men of straw for the purpose, whom on conviction they replaced by others. A fee was paid to these men when in prison of thirty dollars a month.
The bulk of the opium smoking cases would not disappear even if divans were legalized, unless the chandu was also very considerably reduced in price. As he had explained, the offence of smoking illicit opium did not constitute in itself the difficulty as regards prison accommodation.
MR. STRANG asked to what this rise in the number of convictions could be attri- buted. Was it because offences were more numerous or was it a result of increased activity or efficiency on the part of the revenue authorities?
MR. MCELDERRY said that this might be the reason or, on the other hand, it might be that the revenue staff had been increased in number, or that the magistrates may have increased their penalties, or offences might be becoming more numerous and easy to detect.
SIR G. GRINDLE said the position at Hong Kong was quite obviously intolerable and asked, supposing that instead of embarking on the sale of cheap brands of chandu the Hong Kong Government had asked for instructions from Home, what could the British Government have done?
SIR M. DELEVINGNE pointed out that the sudden departure by the new Governor of Hong Kong, made without any consultation with the Home Government, from the declared policy of His Majesty's Government on which they had taken a stand at Geneva placed the Government in a serious difficulty. This colte face had been under- taken with evidently no appreciation of this difficulty and of the inevitable repercussion on the opium policies of the other foreign and colonia! administrations, and on the action which had been taken by the League in regard to a reduction of the production of opium in Persia. There was nothing to show that there would be any ultimate gain as regards the restriction of opium consumption. The only result apparently would be that the field which had been opened up by the smugglers would be occupied by the Government. The advantage on which stress was laid in the telegram from the Hong Kong Government was the relief from the embarrassment of keeping these people in prison. In reply to a remark that the system of control had broken down and the opium situation in Hong Kong had become a farce, he said that this had taken place some years ago. There was no material change in this respect which could justify this sudden change of policy.
The rise in the number of prisoners, which might be due, as Mr. McElderry had pointed out, to a number of causes, did not, he thought, sufficiently justify the scheme. This might be met in other ways. He did not see that the position was very much more intolerable now than it had been for years. The Government were not under any obligation to have Revenue Officers at every yard; all that was required was to do all that could reasonably be done to prevent illicit opium smuggling.
MR. PASKIN-MR. MCELDERRY agreeing said that an effective way of decreasing
the number of convictions would be to stop giving rewards.
MR. MCELDERRY said that the Government could not be said to be doing all it could to prevent illicit opium smuggling if it allowed opium smuggling to remain so profitable an enterprise, but SIR M. DELEVINGNE could not agree that we were under any obligation to enter into competition with the smugglers.
MR. STRANG agreed with Sir M. Delevingne. An important point to bear in mind was that this scheme resulted in the bringing of fresh opium into the market. It was now proposed to bring in Persian opium where only Chinese opium had been before. What guarantee had we that the demand for Persian opium, required by the scheme,
182