CO885-11 — Page 605

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Referance :-

C.O.882/11

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON |

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

27445/24.

34

No. 21.

NOTE OF A CONFERENCE HELD AT THE HOME OFFICE ON THE 2ND JUNE. 1924, TO CONSIDER WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE MADE AS TO THE POLICY TO BE ADOPTED BY HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT AT THE FORTHCOMING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON OPIUM SMOKING IN THE FAR EAST.

Sir MALCOLM DELEVINGNE,

Mr. PERRINS,

Mr. NEWTON,

Present:

Sir JAMES JAMIESON, His Majesty's Consul-General at

Canton,

Sir GILBERT GRINDLE, Mr. PASKIN,

Mr. POUNTNEY, Financial Adviser to the Governments of the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States, and Chairman of the Malayan Opium Com- mittee,

Mr. FLETCHER, Assistant Colonial Secretary to the Government of Hong Kong and member of the Opium Committee,

Home Office.

Foreign Office.

Colonial Office.

SIR MALCOLM DELEVINGNE briefly described the present position. It was agreed that the measures taken in the British Colonies for the control of opium smoking had pro- duced considerable results in the restriction of the practice, but those measures had produced their full effect and matters had come to a standstill and no further progress on these lines was expected. Great Britain, with the other Powers having Far Eastern Territories in which smoking was permitted, was in a position vis-à-vis the League of Nations which it was difficult to defend. Moreover, they were being continually pressed by public opinion in the United States, which has the support of the American Govern ment, to take immediate steps to reduce or to abolish opium smoking in their Far Eastern Territories. In order that the British Government might formulate a policy, the Colonial Governors concerned had been asked to appoint Committees to consider what steps could be taken to carry out Part 2 of the Convention. Two Reports were to hand that from Hong Kong which was frankly negative, and that from the Straits Settlement and Federated Malay Sates, which was very full, and suggested certain lines of advance.

Mr. FLETCHER said that the agitation against opium was mainly foreign-the Chinese did not at present show any manifest desire to abolish opium smoking, but, on the contrary, were apparently determined to smoke. Opium was not to be com- pared in its deleterious effects with alcohol or Indian hemp, the use of both of which was elsewhere in the Empire permitted. The Chinese working classes in the main knew nothing of the League of Nations policy, and his Government felt strongly that it should not be asked to take any further steps for the suppression of opium than it had already taken, as long as opium production and opium smoking were universal throughout China. He pointed out that it was impracticable for a few British officials in Hong Kong to prohibit a national custom among the thousands of Chinese resident there. Hong Kong was an integral part of China-10,000 Chinese crossed the frontier daily and until the supply in China was materially curtailed, nothing further could effectively be done. The Hong Kong Government felt it to be somewhat illogical on the one hand to suppress opium smoking, which was to a certain extent semi-medicinal (especially in the cure of phthisis), and, on the other hand, to allow the eating of opium in India, a practice which, according to medical evidence, was at least as harmful as smoking.

Mr. NEWTON remarked that as Hong Kong is a British possession, British standards must prevail there, and not Chinese.

Sir MALCOLM DELEVINGNE pointed out that His Majesty's Government were com- mitted to the policy of the Opium Convention and it was impossible now to reopen the question of the desirability or otherwise of opium smoking. As to the possibility of further measures for the suppression of opium smoking, this was a matter on which the Government desired to have the advice of experts. Mr. Fletcher represented one expert view. What had Sir James Jamieson to say?

35

Sir JAMES JAMIESON said that he was an advocate of absolute prohibition. His 38 years' experience of China had convinced him that it was possible. The Chinese Government had by edict much to his surprise been successful in totally suppressing opium smoking, and it was only the present disturbed state of the country which had brought about the recent recrudescence. No one could maintain that the present deplorable state of China was but temporary, and when ordered Government returned it was to be expected that opium smoking would discontinue. The younger generation of Chinese looked upon opium smoking in the same way as the abuse of alcohol was viewed in this country. He would point out that the life of the Chinaman now was not what it used to be. There were several alternative methods of recreation open to him. His nights were now not as heretofore spent in the dark-he had electric light, and by this could play games, gamble, or read. He had innumerable picture palaces to go to. The British should go into this matter with clean hands. It was impossible to face Macao or Indo-China whilst we permitted, and what was more, received revenue from, opium smoking. He did not believe that Chinese opinion would be hostile to prohibition of opium smoking in Hong Kong.

Sir MALCOLM DELEVINGNE inquired what in fact was the value to the long Kong Government of the Hong Kong system. The Hong Kong Government admitted that it did not stop smuggling, that as much smuggled opium was being smoked in Hong Kong at the present time as Government opium, and that the revenue derived from it was not necessary to the Colony's finance. What would be the probable results if the Hong Kong Government abolished the Monopoly and made opium smoking illegal?

Mr. FLETCHER said that the discontinuance of the Government Monopoly would mean an increase of smuggling and, consequently of the use of the drug. The Ilong Kong Government was not in favour of a system of rationing; it would prefer to close the monopoly at once rather than by progressive restriction. The smoking and eating of opium might be entirely prohibited, but the Пong Kong Government was not in a position to enforce measures, to give effect to such prohibition, which would be substantially more severe than those now used against illicit opium. The preventive measures now in force were of a severity unknown in European countries, and it was possible to reach a limit in this matter beyond which the Government could not go. The Colony was not necessarily as permanent a British possession as was generally imagined; and if the Government made itself sufficiently unpopular with the Chinese, the loss of the Colony would be only a matter of time. The Seamen's strike was an object lesson, showing the Colony's absolute dependence upon the good-will of the Chinese If opium smoking were prohibited, they would be in the daily position of being able to arrest 20 per cent. of the population. As it would be impossible to do this, and in order that the law might be vindicated, there would have to be discrimina- tion as to who was to be arrested. This would mean even more corruption than there was at present. There was another consideration which should be borne in mind. Discontinuance of opium smoking would probably mean a very large increase in worse habits, such as cocaine and drug-taking, and the eating of opium. He did not agree with Sir James Jamieson that the rising generation disapproved of opium. There was a period, when the agitation was at its height, when young Chinese returning from Europe or America were imbued with the Western ideas that opium smoking must be wrong; opinion had, however, reacted, and there was now a fairly prevalent view that opium smoking in strict moderation was not deleterious.

Sir MALCOLM DELEVINGNE said that it would hardly be accepted that the majority of the Chinese were determined to have their opium, such a proposition would certainly be rejected by the official representatives of the Chinese Government. He referred to the statement in the Report of the Malaya Committee that most of the Chinese smoking, learned the practice in the Colony.

Sir JAMES JAMIESON said he could not agree with what Mr. Fletcher had said. There would be no disorder if opium smoking were prohibited in Hong Kong, and such a measure would be welcomed throughout China. It was not just to say that opium smoking is prevalent throughout China. The Province of Shansi, for example, was free from it.

is

eye-

Mr. FLETCHER agreed that he did not apprehend that suppression would lead to grave disorder or that the Colony would get out of hand, and said that his Government were quite willing to prohibit opium smoking by legislation. but it must be recognised that until the sources of supply were cut off such a measure would be simply wasli." Mr. POUNTNEY, however, expressly dissociated himself, so far as Malaya is concerned, from the view of Sir James Jamieson and Mr. Fletcher that prohibition of opium smoking would not give rise to grave disorders, and he could not agree that a fiat of immediate legislative prohibition would be accepted lying down.

593